## Shevuot Daf 37b

###### Shevuot 37b:1
[Shevuot 37b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/37b:1)

הָא קָיְימָא שְׁנִיָּה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Doesn’t the second** set **stand** ready to testify, so that the refusal of the first set of witnesses does not affect a monetary claim? Evidently, a denial of a monetary claim to which there are witnesses is still considered a denial.


###### Shevuot 37b:2
[Shevuot 37b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/37b:2)

אָמַר רָבִינָא: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיְתָה שְׁנִיָּה בִּשְׁעַת כְּפִירַת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה קְרוֹבִין בִּנְשׁוֹתֵיהֶן, וּנְשׁוֹתֵיהֶן גּוֹסְסוֹת. מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: רוֹב גּוֹסְסִין לְמִיתָה; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן: הַשְׁתָּא מִיהַת חָיֵי נִינְהוּ וְלָא שְׁכִיבֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ravina said: Here we are dealing with** a case **where at the time of the denial by the first** set, **the second** set of witnesses **were related** to one another **through their wives,** so that the second set was unfit to provide testimony; **and their wives were moribund. Lest you say: Most moribund people** actually **die** soon thereafter, and the witnesses are considered fit to provide testimony, the *baraita* **teaches us** that **in any event they are currently alive and have not died.** The second set was therefore unfit to provide testimony.


###### Shevuot 37b:3
[Shevuot 37b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/37b:3)

תָּא שְׁמַע: בַּעַל הַבַּיִת שֶׁטָּעַן טַעֲנַת גַּנָּב בְּפִקָּדוֹן, וְנִשְׁבַּע, וְהוֹדָה, וּבָאוּ עֵדִים; אִם עַד שֶׁלֹּא בָּאוּ עֵדִים הוֹדָה – מְשַׁלֵּם קֶרֶן וָחוֹמֶשׁ וְאָשָׁם. אִם מִשֶּׁבָּאוּ עֵדִים הוֹדָה – מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל וְאָשָׁם!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** a proof from a *baraita*: In the case of **a homeowner** acting as a bailee **who** falsely **claimed** that **a thief** stole **a deposit** from him, **and** the homeowner **took an oath** to that effect **and** then **admitted** that he was lying, **and witnesses came** and testified that the item was not stolen from the homeowner, the *halakha* depends on the circumstances. **If he admitted** to his lie **before** the **witnesses came** and testified, he **pays** the **principal** value of the item **and** the additional **one-fifth** payment for denying that he possessed the deposit, **and** he brings **a guilt-offering** as atonement for a false oath on a deposit. **If he admitted** his guilt **after** the **witnesses came** and testified, **he pays** the **double payment and** brings **a guilt-offering.** The *baraita* indicates that even in the case of a monetary claim to which there are witnesses, one is liable to bring a guilt-offering.


###### Shevuot 37b:4
[Shevuot 37b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/37b:4)

הָכָא נָמֵי, כִּדְרָבִינָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **Here, too,** explain this *baraita* **as Ravina** explained the previous *baraita*, that at the time the homeowner took his oath, the witnesses were related through their moribund wives and were unfit to provide testimony.


###### Shevuot 37b:5
[Shevuot 37b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/37b:5)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי, תָּא שְׁמַע: חֲמוּרָה מִמֶּנָּה שְׁבוּעַת הַפִּקָּדוֹן – שֶׁחַיָּיבִין עַל זְדוֹנָהּ מַכּוֹת, וְעַל שִׁגְגָתָהּ אָשָׁם בְּכֶסֶף שְׁקָלִים. מִדְּקָאָמַר לוֹקֶה – מִכְּלָל דְּאִיכָּא עֵדִים; וְקָאָמַר: עַל שִׁגְגָתָהּ אָשָׁם בְּכֶסֶף שְׁקָלִים!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ravina said to Rav Ashi: Come** and **hear** another proof from that which is taught in a *baraita*: The *halakhot* of **an oath on a deposit are more stringent than** the *halakhot* of an oath of testimony, **as** one is **liable** to receive **lashes for intentionally** taking a false oath on a deposit, **and** one is liable to bring **a guilt-offering worth** at least two **silver shekels for** taking the oath **unwittingly.** Ravina infers: **From** the fact **that** the *baraita* **states** that one **is flogged, by inference** it can be understood that the *baraita* is referring to a case **where there are witnesses** to the fact that the deposit is in the defendant’s possession and the defendant was forewarned, **and** yet it **states:** One is liable to bring **a guilt-offering worth** at least two **silver shekels for** taking the oath **unwittingly.**


###### Shevuot 37b:6
[Shevuot 37b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/37b:6)

אֲמַר לְהוּ רַב מָרְדֳּכַי: בַּר מִינַּהּ דְּהַהִיא; דְּהָאָמַר לְהוּ רַב כָּהֲנָא: אֲנָא תְּנֵינָא לַהּ – וְהָכִי תְּנֵינָא לַהּ: אֶחָד זְדוֹנָהּ וְאֶחָד שִׁגְגָתָהּ, אָשָׁם בְּכֶסֶף שְׁקָלִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Mordekhai said to them: Apart from this,** you cannot cite this *baraita* as a proof. **As, didn’t Rav Kahana already say to** the students (37a): **I** am the one who **teaches** this *baraita* **and this** is how **I teach it:** An oath on a deposit is more stringent than an oath of testimony, since for taking a false oath on a deposit **either intentionally or unwittingly** one is liable to bring **a guilt-offering worth** at least two **silver shekels.** The *baraita* is not referring to a case in which there were witnesses who forewarned him.


###### Shevuot 37b:7
[Shevuot 37b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/37b:7)

תָּא שְׁמַע: לֹא; אִם אָמַרְתָּ בְּנָזִיר טָמֵא – שֶׁכֵּן לוֹקֶה; תֹּאמַר בִּשְׁבוּעַת הַפִּקָּדוֹן – שֶׁאֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה?! הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי דְּלֵיכָּא עֵדִים – אַמַּאי לוֹקֶה? אֶלָּא פְּשִׁיטָא דְּאִיכָּא עֵדִים; וְקָתָנֵי: תֹּאמַר בִּשְׁבוּעַת הַפִּקָּדוֹן שֶׁאֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה; מִלְקָא הוּא דְּלָא לָקֵי – אֲבָל קׇרְבָּן מַיְיתֵי; תְּיוּבְתָּא דְּרַבָּה! תְּיוּבְתָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** a proof from another *baraita*: **No, if you said** that the *halakha* that *baraita* discusses is true **with regard to an impure nazirite, who is indeed flogged** for intentionally becoming impure, **shall you** also **say** that this is the case **with regard to** one who took **an oath on a deposit, who is not flogged?** The Gemara elaborates: **What are the circumstances** of the *baraita*? **If** it is a case **where there were no witnesses, why is** the nazirite **flogged? Rather,** isn’t it **obvious that there are witnesses, and** yet, the *baraita* **teaches: Shall you** also **say** that this is the case **with regard to** one who took **an oath on a deposit, who is not flogged?** It may be inferred that **he does not receive lashes but** does **bring an offering,** even though there are witnesses. The Gemara concludes: **The refutation of** the opinion of **Rabba** is indeed **a conclusive refutation.**


###### Shevuot 37b:8
[Shevuot 37b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/37b:8)

רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: הַכּוֹפֵר בְּמָמוֹן שֶׁיֵּשׁ עָלָיו עֵדִים – חַיָּיב. בִּשְׁטָר – פָּטוּר. אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: מַאי טַעְמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן? עֵדִים – עֲבִידִי דְּמָיְיתִי, שְׁטָר – הָא מַנַּח.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rabbi Yoḥanan says: One who denies a monetary** claim **to which there are witnesses** is **liable** to bring a guilt-offering for a false oath on a deposit. But if he denies a debt **concerning** which there is a promissory **note,** he is **exempt. Rav Pappa said: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Yoḥanan?** It **occurs that witnesses die,** and it is therefore possible that he would not be found liable through their testimony; he is therefore considered to have denied a monetary claim. By contrast, a promissory **note remains** in its place, and his denial would never have exempted him from payment.


###### Shevuot 37b:9
[Shevuot 37b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/37b:9)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ לְרַב פָּפָּא: שְׁטָרָא נָמֵי עֲבִיד דְּמִרְכַס! אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: הַיְינוּ טַעְמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן – מִשּׁוּם דְּהָוֵה שְׁטָר שִׁעְבּוּד קַרְקָעוֹת, וְאֵין מְבִיאִין קׇרְבָּן עַל כְּפִירַת שִׁעְבּוּד קַרְקָעוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said to Rav Pappa:** This cannot be the reasoning of Rabbi Yoḥanan, as it **also occurs that a promissory note becomes lost. Rather, Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: This is the reasoning of Rabbi Yoḥanan:** It is **because** a promissory **note** comprises **a lien on land,** since the promissory note places a lien on the debtor’s property, **and one does not bring an offering** for an oath on a deposit **for denying a lien on land,** since one does not take an oath concerning land.


###### Shevuot 37b:10
[Shevuot 37b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/37b:10)

אִיתְּמַר: מַשְׁבִּיעַ עֵדֵי קַרְקַע – פְּלִיגִי רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר; חַד אָמַר חַיָּיב, וְחַד אָמַר פָּטוּר. תִּסְתַּיַּים דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן דְּאָמַר פָּטוּר – מִדְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הַכּוֹפֵר בְּמָמוֹן שֶׁיֵּשׁ עָלָיו עֵדִים – חַיָּיב, שְׁטָר – פָּטוּר; וְכִדְרַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ. תִּסְתַּיַּים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
It **was stated:** In a case where one **administers an oath to witnesses** who deny knowing information with regard to ownership **of land** and they deny knowledge of the matter, **Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Elazar disagree: One says** that the witnesses are **liable** to bring a sin-offering for a false oath of testimony, **and one says** that they are **exempt.** The Gemara notes: **It may be concluded that** it is **Rabbi Yoḥanan who says** they are **exempt.** This can be inferred **from** the fact **that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: One who denies a monetary** claim **to which there are witnesses** is **liable,** but one who denies a claim concerning which there is a promissory **note** is **exempt. And** this conclusion is **in accordance with** the explanation **of Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua,** that the reasoning of Rabbi Yoḥanan is that a promissory note comprises a lien on land, and one does not bring an offering for denying a lien on land. The Gemara affirms: Indeed, **it may be concluded.**


###### Shevuot 37b:11
[Shevuot 37b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/37b:11)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה לְרַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: לֵימָא רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בִּפְלוּגְתָּא דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר וְרַבָּנַן קָא מִיפַּלְגִי? דִּתְנַן: הַגּוֹזֵל שָׂדֶה מֵחֲבֵירוֹ וּשְׁטָפָהּ נָהָר – חַיָּיב לְהַעֲמִיד לוֹ שָׂדֶה. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אוֹמֵר לוֹ ״הֲרֵי שֶׁלְּךָ לְפָנֶיךָ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yirmeya said to Rabbi Abbahu: Shall we say** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Elazar disagree with regard to** the issue that is the subject of **the dispute of Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis? As we learned** in a *baraita*: In the case of **one who robbed another of a field and** then **a river flooded it,** he is **liable to provide** the field’s owner with **a different field,** since the value of the flooded field was significantly decreased and the robber must return the value of that which he stole; this is **the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. And the Rabbis say:** He is exempt from doing so, as **he** can **say to** the owner: **That which is yours is before you.** The robber may return the flooded field to its owner without reimbursing him for the loss in its value, since according to the Rabbis, land cannot be stolen. Consequently, the field is considered to be in the possession of its owner, and the thief is not obligated in the mitzva of returning a stolen item.


###### Shevuot 37b:12
[Shevuot 37b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/37b:12)

וְאָמְרִינַן: בְּמַאי קָמִיפַּלְגִי? רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר דָּרֵישׁ רִבּוּיֵי וּמִיעוּטֵי, וְרַבָּנַן דָּרְשִׁי כְּלָלֵי וּפְרָטֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Yirmeya continues: **And we say: With regard to what do they disagree? Rabbi Eliezer interprets** the verses that discuss an oath on a deposit and the mitzva to return stolen items according to the hermeneutical principle of **amplifications and restrictions, and the Rabbis interpret** them according to the hermeneutical principle of **generalizations and details.**


###### Shevuot 37b:13
[Shevuot 37b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/37b:13)

רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר דָּרֵישׁ רִבּוּיֵי וּמִיעוּטֵי: ״וְכִחֵשׁ בַּעֲמִיתוֹ״ – רִיבָּה, ״בְּפִקָּדוֹן אוֹ בִתְשׂוּמֶת יָד״ – מִיעֵט, ״אוֹ מִכֹּל אֲשֶׁר יִשָּׁבַע״ – חָזַר וְרִיבָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
He explains: **Rabbi Eliezer interprets** the verses: “If anyone sin, and commit a trespass against the Lord, and deal falsely with his neighbor in a matter of deposit or of pledge, or of robbery, or have oppressed his neighbor…or of anything about which he has sworn falsely, he shall restore it in full” (Leviticus 5:21–24), according to the hermeneutical principle of **amplifications and restrictions.** The phrase “if anyone sin, and commit a trespass against the Lord, **and deal falsely with his neighbor” amplified** the *halakha*. When the verse states: **“In a matter of deposit or of pledge,”** it has **restricted** the *halakha* to the case of a deposit. When the verse then states: **“Or of anything about which he has sworn falsely,** he shall restore it in full,” **it** has **then amplified** the *halakha* again.


###### Shevuot 37b:14
[Shevuot 37b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/37b:14)

רִיבָּה וּמִיעֵט וְרִיבָּה – רִיבָּה הַכֹּל. מַאי רִיבָּה? רִיבָּה כֹּל מִילֵּי; וּמַאי מִיעֵט? מִיעֵט שְׁטָרוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Accordingly, as the Torah **amplified and** then **restricted and** then **amplified** again, it has **amplified** the *halakha* to include **everything** except for the specific matter excluded by the restriction. **What** is included due to the fact that the verse **has amplified** the *halakha*? The verse **has amplified** the *halakha* to include **everything** that one steals. **And what** is excluded due to the fact that the verse **restricted** the *halakha*? **It restricted** the *halakha* to exclude financial **documents,** which are dissimilar to a deposit in that their value is not intrinsic but rather due to their function. Consequently, according to Rabbi Eliezer, land that was stolen is included in the *halakhot* stated in these verses, and one who steals land must reimburse the field’s owner.


###### Shevuot 37b:15
[Shevuot 37b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/37b:15)

וְרַבָּנַן דָּרְשִׁי כְּלָלֵי וּפְרָטֵי: ״וְכִחֵשׁ בַּעֲמִיתוֹ״ – כְּלָל, ״בְּפִקָּדוֹן אוֹ בִתְשׂוּמֶת יָד אוֹ בְגָזֵל״ – פְּרָט, ״אוֹ מִכֹּל אֲשֶׁר יִשָּׁבַע עָלָיו״ – חָזַר וְכָלַל. כְּלָל וּפְרָט וּכְלָל – אִי אַתָּה דָן אֶלָּא כְּעֵין הַפְּרָט.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And the Rabbis interpreted** these verses according to the hermeneutical principle of **generalizations and details.** The phrase **“and deal falsely with his neighbor”** is **a generalization,** while the subsequent phrase, **“in a matter of deposit or of pledge, or of robbery,”** is **a detail.** When the verse then states: **“Or of anything about which he has sworn** falsely, he shall restore it in full,” **it** has **then generalized** again. In the case of **a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization, you may deduce** that the verse is referring **only** to items **similar to the detail.**


###### Shevuot 37b:16
[Shevuot 37b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/37b:16)

מָה הַפְּרָט מְפוֹרָשׁ – דָּבָר הַמִּטַּלְטֵל וְגוּפוֹ מָמוֹן; אַף כׇּל דָּבָר הַמִּטַּלְטֵל וְגוּפוֹ מָמוֹן. יָצְאוּ קַרְקָעוֹת – שֶׁאֵין (מטלטל) [מִטַּלְטְלִין]; יָצְאוּ עֲבָדִים – שֶׁהוּקְּשׁוּ לְקַרְקָעוֹת; יָצְאוּ שְׁטָרוֹת – שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמִּטַּלְטְלִין, אֵין גּוּפָן מָמוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Accordingly, **just as the detail,** i.e., a deposit, **is explicitly** a case of **movable property and** has **intrinsic monetary** value, **so too,** the verse includes **anything that is movable property and** has **intrinsic monetary** value. Consequently, **land has been excluded, as it is not movable property.** Canaanite **slaves have been excluded, as they are compared to land** with regard to many areas of *halakha*. Financial **documents have been excluded because although they** are **movable property, they do not** have **intrinsic monetary** value.


###### Shevuot 37b:17
[Shevuot 37b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/37b:17)

מַאן דִּמְחַיֵּיב – כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, וּמַאן דְּפָטַר – כְּרַבָּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Yirmeya concludes: Shall we say that the **one who deems** the witnesses **liable** in a case of an oath of testimony concerning land, i.e., Rabbi Elazar, holds **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Eliezer,** that land is included in the mitzva of returning stolen property and in the *halakhot* of an oath on a deposit, and by extension, in the *halakhot* of an oath of testimony; **and the one who deems** them **exempt,** i.e., Rabbi Yoḥanan, holds **in accordance with** the opinion of **the Rabbis,** that land is excluded from these *halakhot*?


###### Shevuot 37b:18
[Shevuot 37b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/37b:18)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא; מַאן דִּמְחַיֵּיב – כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר; וּמַאן דְּפָטַר אָמַר לָךְ: בְּהָא אֲפִילּוּ רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר מוֹדֶה, דְּרַחֲמָנָא אָמַר ״מִכֹּל״ – וְלֹא הַכֹּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Abbahu **said to** Rabbi Yirmeya: **No,** the two disagreements do not completely correspond. The **one who deems** the witnesses **liable** must in fact hold **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Eliezer. But the one who deems** them **exempt** could have **said to you: In this** case of an oath of testimony, **even Rabbi Eliezer concedes** that they are exempt from bringing an offering, **as the Merciful One states: “Of anything** about which he has sworn falsely,” **and not: Everything** about which he has sworn falsely. The verse indicates that only certain items are included in the *halakhot* of an oath of testimony. Therefore, land is excluded, since it is dissimilar to the specific instances mentioned in the verse.


###### Shevuot 37b:19
[Shevuot 37b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/37b:19)

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא: מַתְנִיתִין נָמֵי דַּיְקָא, דְּקָתָנֵי: ״גָּנַבְתָּ אֶת שׁוֹרִי״, וְהוּא אוֹמֵר: ״לֹא גָּנַבְתִּי״; ״מַשְׁבִּיעֲךָ אֲנִי״, וְאָמַר: ״אָמֵן״ – חַיָּיב. וְאִילּוּ ״גָּנַבְתָּ אֶת עַבְדִּי״ – לָא קָתָנֵי; מַאי טַעְמָא? לָאו מִשּׁוּם דְּעֶבֶד אִיתַּקַּשׁ לְקַרְקָעוֹת, וְאֵין מְבִיאִין קׇרְבָּן עַל כְּפִירַת שִׁעְבּוּד קַרְקָעוֹת?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa said in the name of Rava: The mishna is also precisely** formulated, **as it teaches:** In a case where one accuses another: **You stole my ox, and** the defendant **says: I did not steal** your ox, if the claimant replied: **I administer an oath to you, and** the defendant **said: Amen,** he is **liable.** The mishna discusses a claim of a stolen ox, **whereas** it **does not teach** a claim of: **You stole my** Canaanite **slave. What is the reason? Is it not due to the fact that** a Canaanite **slave is compared to land, and one is not liable to bring an offering for a denial** in a matter of **a lien on land?**


###### Shevuot 37b:20
[Shevuot 37b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/37b:20)

אָמַר רַב פַּפֵּי מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא: אֵימָא סֵיפָא, זֶה הַכְּלָל: כׇּל הַמְשַׁלֵּם עַל פִּי עַצְמוֹ – חַיָּיב, וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם עַל פִּי עַצְמוֹ – פָּטוּר. ״זֶה הַכְּלָל״ לְאֵתוֹיֵי מַאי? לָאו לְאֵתוֹיֵי ״גָּנַבְתָּ אֶת עַבְדִּי״?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappi said in the name of Rava:** There is no proof from the mishna, as **say the last clause** of the mishna: **This is the principle:** For **any** claim **that** the defendant would have to **pay based on his own** admission, he is **liable. And** for any claim that he would **not pay based on his own** admission, but by the testimony of witnesses, he is **exempt,** even if he denies the claim against him and takes an oath to that effect. Rav Pappi asks: **What is added** by the phrase: **This is the principle? Is it not to include** even an accusation of: **You stole my** Canaanite **slave,** in the *halakha* of oaths on a deposit?