## Shevuot Daf 38a

###### Shevuot 38a:1
[Shevuot 38a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/38a:1)

אֶלָּא מֵהָא לֵיכָּא לְמִשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, no** inference is **to be learned from** the mishna.


###### Shevuot 38a:2
[Shevuot 38a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/38a:2)

שְׁבוּעַת הַפִּקָּדוֹן כֵּיצַד? ״תֵּן לִי פִּקָּדוֹן שֶׁיֵּשׁ לִי בְּיָדְךָ״ כּוּ׳. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: כְּלָל – אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא אַחַת. פְּרָט – חַיָּיב עַל כׇּל אַחַת וְאַחַת. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: ״שְׁבוּעָה לֹא לְךָ וְלֹא לְךָ וְלֹא לָךְ״ – חַיָּיב עַל כׇּל אַחַת וְאַחַת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: **What is the case of an oath on a deposit?** It is where the claimant **said to** the defendant: **Give me my deposit, which is in your possession,** and the defendant replied: On my oath nothing of yours is in my possession, or the defendant said to him: Nothing of yours is in my possession; the claimant responded: I administer an oath to you, and the defendant said: Amen. In either case this defendant is liable to bring a guilt-offering if he lied. The mishna then discusses a case where five people sued him and he took an oath denying all of their claims. With regard to this case, **the Sages taught** in a *baraita*: If he **included** all the denials in one oath, **he is liable** for **only one** false oath; if he **specified** them, **he is liable for** his oath concerning **each and every** claim; this is **the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says** that if he said: On my **oath nothing** of **yours** is in my possession, **and nothing** of **yours, and nothing** of **yours,** he is **liable for** his oath concerning **each and every** claim.


###### Shevuot 38a:3
[Shevuot 38a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/38a:3)

רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: ״לֹא לְךָ וְלֹא לְךָ וְלֹא לְךָ, שְׁבוּעָה״ – חַיָּיב עַל כׇּל אַחַת וְאַחַת. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר שְׁבוּעָה לְכׇל אַחַת וְאַחַת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: **Rabbi Eliezer says** that only if he said: **Nothing** of **yours** is in my possession, **and nothing** of **yours, and nothing** of **yours,** on my **oath,** i.e., he said the word oath at the end, is he **liable for** his oath concerning **each and every** claim. **Rabbi Shimon says:** He is not liable for his oath concerning each individual claim **unless he says:** On my **oath, to each and every** claimant.


###### Shevuot 38a:4
[Shevuot 38a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/38a:4)

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: כְּלָלוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי מֵאִיר – פְּרָטוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יְהוּדָה; כְּלָלוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יְהוּדָה – פְּרָטוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי מֵאִיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Shmuel and Rabbi Yoḥanan disagree with regard to the dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda: **Rav Yehuda says** that **Shmuel says:** The phrasing where one uses the conjunction: And, between denials is considered **by Rabbi Meir** to be **a general** denial and is considered **by Rabbi Yehuda** to be **a specific** denial; and the phrasing where one refrains from using the conjunction: And, is considered **by Rabbi Yehuda** to be **a general** denial and is considered **by Rabbi Meir** to be **a specific** denial.


###### Shevuot 38a:5
[Shevuot 38a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/38a:5)

וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: הַכֹּל מוֹדִים בִּ״וְלֹא לָךְ״ – שֶׁהוּא פְּרָט; לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ אֶלָּא בְּ״לֹא לָךְ״ – שֶׁרַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר פְּרָט, וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר כְּלָל. וְאֵיזֶהוּ כְּלָלוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי מֵאִיר? ״שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאֵין לָכֶם בְּיָדִי״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: All concede in** a case where the defendant says: **And nothing** of **yours, that it is** considered **specific** and that he is liable for his oath concerning each claim, even Rabbi Meir. **They disagree only with regard to** a case where the defendant said: **Nothing of yours,** without the conjunctive: And. **As Rabbi Meir says:** It is considered **specific, and Rabbi Yehuda says:** It is considered **general. And what is** the case of **a general** denial according **to Rabbi Meir,** where one is liable for only one oath? It is the case where the defendant says, in the plural: On my **oath nothing** of **yours** is **in my possession.**


###### Shevuot 38a:6
[Shevuot 38a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/38a:6)

בְּמַאי קָמִיפַּלְגִי? שְׁמוּאֵל דָּיֵיק מִבָּרַיְיתָא, וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן דָּיֵיק מִמַּתְנִיתִין. שְׁמוּאֵל דָּיֵיק מִבָּרַיְיתָא: מִדְּקָאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה ״וְלֹא לָךְ״ פְּרָטָא הָוֵי – מִכְּלָל דְּשַׁמְעֵיהּ לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר דְּאָמַר כְּלָלָא הָוֵי, וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: פְּרָטָא הָוֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **With regard to what do they disagree** that they explain the opinion of Rabbi Meir differently? The Gemara responds: **Shmuel inferred** his explanation **from the *baraita*, and Rabbi Yoḥanan inferred** his explanation **from the mishna.** The Gemara explains: **Shmuel inferred** his explanation **from the *baraita*** as follows: **From** the fact **that Rabbi Yehuda says** that the phrase: **And nothing** of **yours, is** considered **a specific** denial, for which one is liable for his oath concerning each and every claim, one may conclude **by inference that** Rabbi Yehuda **understood that Rabbi Meir said** that **it is** considered **a general** denial, **and** therefore, **Rabbi Yehuda** disagreed and **said to him:** No, **it is** considered **a specific** denial.


###### Shevuot 38a:7
[Shevuot 38a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/38a:7)

וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: תַּרְוַיְיהוּ לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר פְּרָטָא הָוֵי; וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: בִּ״וְלֹא לָךְ״ מוֹדֵינָא לָךְ, בְּ״לֹא לָךְ״ פְּלִיגְנָא עֲלָךְ. וּשְׁמוּאֵל – עַד דְּאוֹדִי לֵיהּ אוֹדוֹיֵי, לִפְלוֹג עֲלֵיהּ אִיפְּלוֹגֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Yoḥanan says** in response to this inference that the *baraita* can be explained differently: **Both** phrases: Nothing of yours, and: And nothing of yours, **are** deemed **specific** denials **by Rabbi Meir; and Rabbi Yehuda said to him: With regard to: And nothing** of **yours, I concede to you** that it is considered specific. But **with regard to: Nothing** of **yours, I disagree with you** and consider it a general denial. **And Shmuel** would respond: If that is so, then why does Rabbi Yehuda state in the *baraita* the instance in which he concedes to Rabbi Meir? **Instead of conceding, let him disagree** and state the instance in which they differ.


###### Shevuot 38a:8
[Shevuot 38a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/38a:8)

וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן דָּיֵיק מִמַּתְנִיתִין – מִדְּקָאָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר: ״שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאֵין לָכֶם בְּיָדִי״ – כְּלָלָא הָוֵי, מִכְּלָל דִּ״וְלֹא לָךְ״ – פְּרָטָא הָוֵי; דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ ״וְלֹא לָךְ״ כְּלָלָא הָוֵי – אַדְּמַשְׁמַע לַן ״שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאֵין לָכֶם בְּיָדִי״, נַשְׁמְעִינַן ״שְׁבוּעָה לֹא לָךְ וְלֹא לָךְ וְלֹא לָךְ״, כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן ״שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאֵין לָכֶם בְּיָדִי״!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara proceeds to explain the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan: **And Rabbi Yoḥanan inferred** his explanation **from the mishna** as follows: **From** the fact **that Rabbi Meir,** who is the *tanna* associated with unattributed statements in the Mishna, **says:** If he addressed all of the claimants and said: On my **oath nothing** of **yours** is **in my possession, it is** deemed **a general** denial, one may conclude **by inference that** a denial phrased: **And nothing** of **yours, is** deemed **specific. As if it would enter your mind** that Rabbi Meir also deems: **And nothing** of **yours,** to be **a general** denial, then **instead of teaching us** that when one states in the plural: On my **oath nothing** of **yours** is **in my possession,** it is deemed general, **let him teach us** that when one states: On my **oath nothing** of **yours** is in my possession, **and nothing** of **yours, and nothing** of **yours,** it is general, and **all the more so** it would be clear that when one states in the plural: On my **oath nothing** of **yours** is **in my possession,** it is considered general.


###### Shevuot 38a:9
[Shevuot 38a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/38a:9)

וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: כׇּל הָאוֹמֵר ״וְלֹא לָךְ״, כְּאוֹמֵר ״שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאֵין לָכֶם בְּיָדִי״ דָּמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Shmuel says** that one may interpret the statement of Rabbi Meir as follows: **Anyone who says: And nothing** of **yours, is** considered **as though he says** in the plural: On my **oath nothing** of **yours** is **in my possession.**


###### Shevuot 38a:10
[Shevuot 38a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/38a:10)

תְּנַן: ״לֹא לָךְ וְלֹא לָךְ וְלֹא לָךְ״! תְּנִי: ״לֹא לָךְ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara attempts to bring a proof for the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan: **We learned** in the mishna that if the defendant said: On my oath **nothing of yours** is in my possession, **and nothing** of **yours, and nothing** of **yours,** he is liable for his oath concerning each and every claim that he falsely denied. Evidently, Rabbi Meir deems: And nothing of yours, to be specific. The Gemara rejects the proof: Emend the language of the mishna and **teach: Nothing** of **yours,** nothing of yours, nothing of yours.


###### Shevuot 38a:11
[Shevuot 38a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/38a:11)

תָּא שְׁמַע: ״תֵּן לִי פִּקָּדוֹן וּתְשׂוּמֶת יָד וְגָזֵל וַאֲבֵידָה״! תְּנִי: ״תְּשׂוּמֶת יָד גָּזֵל אֲבֵידָה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** an additional proof from that which is taught in the mishna: In a case where the claimant says: **Give me** back **my deposit, and pledge, and stolen item, and lost item** that are in your possession, and the defendant responds: On my oath I do not have in my possession your deposit, or pledge, or stolen item, or lost item, he is liable for his oath concerning each and every claim. Evidently, by using the conjunction: Or, Rabbi Meir deems the denials specific, counter to the explanation of Shmuel. The Gemara rejects the proof: Emend the language of the mishna and **teach:** On my oath you do not have a deposit, **a pledge, a stolen item, a lost item,** in my possession.


###### Shevuot 38a:12
[Shevuot 38a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/38a:12)

תָּא שְׁמַע: ״תֵּן לִי חִטִּין וּשְׂעוֹרִין וְכוּסְּמִין״! תְּנִי: ״שְׂעוֹרִין כּוּסְּמִין״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** another proof from the mishna: In a case where the claimant said: **Give me** back my **wheat, and barley, and spelt** that are in your possession, if the defendant responds: On my oath nothing of yours is in my possession, he is liable for only one false oath. But if he responds: On my oath I do not have in my possession your wheat, or barley, or spelt, he is liable for his oath concerning each and every claim. The mishna is therefore counter to the explanation of Shmuel. The Gemara rejects the proof: Again, emend the language of the mishna and **teach:** Wheat, **barley, spelt,** without the conjunction: Or.


###### Shevuot 38a:13
[Shevuot 38a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/38a:13)

וְהַאי תַּנָּא כֹּל הָכִי שָׁבֵישׁ תָּנֵי וְאָזֵיל?! אֶלָּא הָא מַנִּי – רַבִּי הִיא, דְּאָמַר: לָא שְׁנָא ״כְּזַיִת, כְּזַיִת״, וְלָא שְׁנָא ״כְּזַיִת וּכְזַיִת״ – פְּרָטָא הָוֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** could it be that **this *tanna* errs so much as he teaches** the mishna? The Gemara offers an alternative explanation: According to Shmuel, the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir. **Rather,** in accordance with **whose** opinion **is this** mishna? **It is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi, **who says:** There **is no difference** if one says: **An olive-bulk an olive-bulk,** and there **is no difference** if one says: **An olive-bulk and an olive-bulk;** both **are** considered **specific** formulations.


###### Shevuot 38a:14
[Shevuot 38a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/38a:14)

תָּא שְׁמַע מִדִּידֵיהּ: רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר, אֲפִילּוּ ״חִטָּה וּשְׂעוֹרָה וְכוּסֶּמֶת״ – חַיָּיב עַל כׇּל אַחַת וְאַחַת. תְּנִי: ״חִטָּה שְׂעוֹרָה כּוּסֶּמֶת״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** a proof **from** Rabbi Meir’s **own** statement in the mishna: **Rabbi Meir says: Even** if the defendant says: On my oath I do not have in my possession your **grain of wheat, or grain of barley, or grain of spelt,** he is **liable for** his oath concerning **each and every** claim. Clearly, the conjunction: Or, renders the denial specific according to Rabbi Meir, counter to the explanation of Shmuel. The Gemara rejects the proof: Emend the language of the mishna and **teach:** On my oath I do not have in my possession **a grain of wheat, a grain of barley, a grain of spelt** of yours.


###### Shevuot 38a:15
[Shevuot 38a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/38a:15)

מַאי ״אֲפִילּוּ״? אָמַר רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִיקָא: אֲפִילּוּ חִטָּה בִּכְלַל חִטִּין, וּשְׂעוֹרָה בִּכְלַל שְׂעוֹרִין, וְכוּסֶּמֶת בִּכְלַל כּוּסְּמִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **What** novelty is there in a case where one takes an oath in this manner, that Rabbi Meir says: **Even? Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Ika, said: Even** the singular form for **wheat includes** much **wheat, and** the singular form for **barley includes** much **barley, and** the singular form for **spelt includes** much **spelt,** i.e., although the defendant refers to the grains in the singular, his denial is referring to all wheat, all barley, and all spelt.


###### Shevuot 38a:16
[Shevuot 38a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/38a:16)

״תֵּן לִי פִּקָּדוֹן וּתְשׂוּמֶת יָד גָּזֵל וַאֲבֵידָה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לִי בְּיָדְךָ״ כּוּ׳. ״תֵּן לִי חִטִּין וּשְׂעוֹרִין״ – אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: פְּרוּטָה מִכּוּלָּם מִצְטָרֶפֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: **Give me** back **my deposit, and pledge, stolen item, and lost item that are in your possession, etc.** If the claimant said: **Give me** back my **wheat and barley,** and spelt, and the defendant responds: On my oath I do not have in my possession your wheat, or barley, or spelt, he is liable for his oath concerning each and every claim. **Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** If **all of the** wheat, barley, and spelt were collectively worth at least one ***peruta*,** then even if each type of grain was worth less than one *peruta*, their total value **combines** to render him liable.


###### Shevuot 38a:17
[Shevuot 38a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/38a:17)

פְּלִיגִי בַּהּ רַב אַחָא וְרָבִינָא – חַד אָמַר: אַפְּרָטֵי מִיחַיַּיב, אַכְּלָלֵי לָא מִיחַיַּיב; וְחַד אָמַר: אַכְּלָלֵי נָמֵי מִיחַיַּיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Aḥa and Ravina disagree with regard to** the ruling of the mishna. **One says** that when the mishna teaches that one is liable for his oath concerning each and every claim, it means that **he is liable for** the three **specific** denials of wheat, barley, and spelt, and he must bring three separate offerings; but **he is not liable for** the **general** oath taken at the beginning of his denial, i.e., when he said: On my oath I do not have in my possession. Accordingly, the statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan was said with regard to the previous case in the mishna, where the defendant said: On my oath I do not have in my possession. **And one says** that **he is liable also for the general** oath taken at the beginning of his denial, so that the defendant is liable to bring a total of four offerings. Accordingly, even if the grains were worth only one *peruta* collectively and the defendant is not liable for any of the specific oaths, the defendant remains liable to bring an offering for the general oath according to Rabbi Yoḥanan.


###### Shevuot 38a:18
[Shevuot 38a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/38a:18)

וְהָתָנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא: הֲרֵי כָּאן חֲמֵשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה חַטָּאוֹת; וְאִם אִיתָא – עֶשְׂרִים הָוְיָין! הַאי תַּנָּא – דִּפְרָטֵי קָא חָשֵׁיב, דִּכְלָלֵי לָא קָא חָשֵׁיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara questions the second opinion: **But didn’t Rabbi Ḥiyya teach** in a *baraita*: If five people claimed from one defendant wheat, barley, and spelt, and the defendant took an oath denying each claim of each claimant, **there are** then **fifteen sin-offerings here** that the defendant is liable to bring? **And if it is so** that the defendant is liable for the general oath as well, **there would be** a total of **twenty** sin-offerings that he is liable to bring. The Gemara responds: **That *tanna* calculated** the defendant’s liability for **the specific** oaths; **he did not calculate** the defendant’s liability for **the general** oaths.


###### Shevuot 38a:19
[Shevuot 38a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/38a:19)

וְהָא תָּנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא: ״הֲרֵי כָּאן עֶשְׂרִים חַטָּאוֹת״! הָהִיא אַפִּקָּדוֹן וּתְשׂוּמֶת יָד וְגָזֵל וַאֲבֵידָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara now questions the first opinion: **But didn’t Rabbi Ḥiyya teach** in a different *baraita*: **There are twenty sin-offerings here?** Evidently, Rabbi Ḥiyya does calculate the general oaths. The Gemara responds: **That** *baraita* does not count the general oaths either; rather, it is referring **to** a different case entirely, where each of the five claimants claimed from the defendant **a deposit and a pledge and a stolen item and a lost item.**


###### Shevuot 38a:20
[Shevuot 38a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/38a:20)

בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רָבָא מֵרַב נַחְמָן: הָיוּ חֲמִשָּׁה תּוֹבְעִין אוֹתוֹ, וְאָמְרוּ לוֹ: ״תֵּן לָנוּ פִּקָּדוֹן תְּשׂוּמֶת יָד וְגָזֵל וַאֲבֵידָה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָנוּ בְּיָדְךָ״; אָמַר לְאֶחָד מֵהֶן: ״שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאֵין לְךָ בְּיָדִי פִּקָּדוֹן תְּשׂוּמֶת יָד גָּזֵל וַאֲבֵידָה, וְלֹא לָךְ וְלֹא לָךְ וְלֹא לָךְ וְלֹא לָךְ״ – מַהוּ? אַחֲדָא מִיחַיַּיב,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava raised a dilemma before Rav Naḥman:** In a case where **five** people **were suing** another **and they said to him: Give us back our deposit, pledge, and stolen item, and lost item that are in your possession,** and the defendant **said to one of them:** On my **oath your deposit, pledge, stolen item, and lost item** are **not in my possession, and neither** are **yours, and neither** are **yours, and neither** are **yours, and neither** are **yours, what is** the *halakha*? Is **he liable for** only **one** oath for each of the four claimants to whom he said: And neither are yours, since these are considered general oaths?