משנה: תֶּן לִי פִיקָּדוֹן וּתְשׂוּמֶת יָד גָּזֵל וַאֲבֵדָה שֶׁיֶּשׁ לִי בְיָדֶךָ שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאֵין לְךָ בְיָדִי אֵינוֹ חַייָב אֶלָּא אֶחָת. שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאֵין לְךָ בְיָדִי פִיקָּדוֹן וּתְשׂוּמֶת יָד וְגָזֵל וַאֲבֵדָה חַייָב עַל כָּל־אַחַת וְאַחַת. תֶּן לִי חִיטִּים וּשְׁעוֹרִים וְכוּסְמִין שֶׁיֶּשׁ לִי בְיָדֶךָ שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאֵין לְךָ בְיָדִי אֵינוֹ חַייָב אֶלָּא אַחַת. שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאֵין לְךָ בְיָדִי חִטִּין וּשְׂעוֹרִין וְכוּסְמִין חַייָב עַל כָּל־אַחַת וְאַחַת. רִבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר אֲפִילּוּ אָמַר חִטָּה וּשְׂעוֹרָה וְכוּסֶּמֶת חַייָב עַל כָּל־אַחַת וְאַחַת׃ MISHNAH: “Give me the deposit, the loan, the robbery, and the lost object which you are holding for me.” “An oath that I am not holding anything of yours;” he is liable only once. “An oath that I am holding for you neither a deposit, nor a loan, nor a robbery, nor a lost object;” he is liable for each separate item61The same arguments made for oaths addressed to different people can be made for oaths covering different subjects; cf. Shevuot 5:3:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Shevuot.5.3.1">Note 44. The dissents of RR. Eleazar and Simeon apply here also..
“Give me the wheat, and the barley, and the spelt, which you are holding for me.” “An oath that I am not holding anything for you,” he is liable only for one. “An oath that I am not holding wheat, and barley, and spelt, for you,” he is liable for each single one61The same arguments made for oaths addressed to different people can be made for oaths covering different subjects; cf. Shevuot 5:3:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Shevuot.5.3.1">Note 44. The dissents of RR. Eleazar and Simeon apply here also.. Rebbi Meїr says, even if he says, “wheat, and barley, and spelt,68Even if the defendant did not use the language of the claimant, as long as the meaning is the same there is liability for a false oath. The claimant used the vernacular plural to describe his claim; the defendant used the biblical collective (Exodus.9.31-32">Ex. 9:31–32) which in form is identical with the singular. In the Halakhah, the collective for R. Meїr is read as singular for the anonymous Tanna.” he is liable for each single one.
הלכה: תֶּן לִי פִיקָּדוֹן וּתְשׂוּמֶת יָד כול׳. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן נִמְצָא שֶׂאֵין בְיָדוֹ חִטִּים פָּטוּר בִּשְׁאָר. אָמַר רִבִּי בָּא. אַף רִבִּי יָסָא מוֹדֶה בָהּ. נִמְצָא שֶׁיֵּשׁ בְּיָדוּ חִיטִּין מָהוּ שֶׁתָּחוּל שְׁבוּעָה בִּשְׁאָר הַמִּינִין. חֲבֵרַייָא אָֽמְרֵי. לָא חָלָה. רִבִּי זֵירָא אָמַר. חָלָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא. מַתְנִיתָי מְסָייְעָה לְמָה דְּאָֽמְרֵי חֲבֵרַייָא. אִשָּׁה שֶׁאָֽמְרָה. הֲרֵינִי נְזִירָה. וְשָֽׁמְעָה חֲבֵירָתָהּ וְאָֽמְרָה. וַאֲנִי. וְשָׁמַע בַּעַל הָרִאשׁוֹנָה וְהֵיפֵר לָהּ. הָרִאשׁוּנָה מוּתֶּרֶת וְהַשְּׁנִייָה אֲסוּרָה. אִם אָֽמְרָה. לֹא נִתְכַּווַנְתִּי לִהְיוֹת אֶלָּא כְמוֹתָהּ. שְׁתֵּיהֶן מוּתָּרוֹת. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאָֽמְרָה. לֹא נִתְכַּווַנְתִּי אֶלָּא לִהְיוֹת כְמוֹתָהּ וּכְיוֹצֶא בָהּ. הָא אִם לֹא אָֽמְרָה. לִהְיוֹת כְּמוֹתָהּ וּכְיוֹצֶא בָהּ. הָרִאשׁוּנָה מוּתֶּרֶת וְהַשְּׁנִייָה אֲסוּרָה. מָה אִם תַּמָּן שֶׁאֵין שָׁם עִיקַּר שְׁבוּעָה אַתָּ מַר חָלָה. כָּאן שֶׁיֵּשׁ עִיקַּר שְׁבוּעָה לֹא כָל־שֶׁכֵּן שֶׁתָּחוּל. וּמַאי דָא דְאָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן נִמְצָא שֶׂאֵין בְיָדוֹ חִטִּין פָּטוּר בִּשְׁאָר. בְּמַתְפִּיס בָּאוֹמֵר. שְׂעוֹרִין יְהוּ כְחִיטִּין. כּוּסְמִין יְהוּ כְחִיטִּין. HALAKHAH: “Give me the deposit, the loan,” etc. 62This entire Halakhah is a slightly defective copy of a text in Nazir 4:3:2-6" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nazir.4.3.2-6">Nazir 4:3, explained there in Shevuot 5:3:3-7" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Shevuot.5.3.3-7">Notes 48–60. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Simeon implies that if it turns out that he had no wheat, he is not liable for the rest. Rebbi Abba said, even Rebbi (Yasa)63In Nazir: R. Jehudah. Since there is no Tanna R. Yasa, the reading “R. Jehudah” has to be accepted. In the next Halakhah, R. Jehudah is identified as the anonymous Tanna of Mishnaiot 3–5. will agree with this. If it turns out that he had no wheat, does [the oath] refer to the other kinds? The colleagues said, it does not. Rebbi Ze`ira said, it does. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, a baraita supports what the colleagues said. “A woman made a vow as a nazir and her friend heard it and said, ‘so am I’; the first woman’s husband heard it and dissolved [the vow] for her; the first one is permitted and the second forbidden. 64In Nazir, “R. Simeon said, if …” Since the next paragraph refers to R. Simeon, this must also be the text here. If she said, ‘my intention was only to be like her,’ both are permitted.” Because she said, “to be like her, in her state”. Therefore, if she did not say “to be like her, in her state”, the first is permitted and the second forbidden. Since there, where the essence is not an oath, you say it applies, here, where there was an original oath, not so much more? What Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Simeon implies if it turns out that he had no wheat, he is not liable for the rest, if he connects: If he says, [my obligation for] barley shall be like that for wheat; [my obligation for] spelt shall be like that for wheat.
פְּשִׁיטָא דָא מִילְּתָא. לֹא הֵיפֵר לָהּ בַּעֲל הָרִאשׁוֹנָה וְעָֽמְדָה בְנִדְרָהּ לוֹקָה. שְׁנִייָה מָהוּ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. מֵאַחַר שֶׁזּוֹ לוֹקָה זוֹ לוֹקָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָן. וּתְנַיי בֵית דִּין הוּא. וְתֵיעָשֶׂה שְׁנִייָה כְּאוֹמֶרֶת. הֲרֵינִי נְזִירָה ל׳ יוֹם. רִבִּי שִׁמעוֹן כְּדַעְתֵּיהּ דְּאָמַר. בְּמִגְבָּה הַדָּבָר תָּלוּי. The following is obvious: If her husband did not dissolve [the vow] for the first woman and she (remained)65Read with Nazir: “she violated her vow.” in her vow, she is whipped. Can the second he whipped? Rebbi Yose said, since one is whipped, the other also is whipped. Rebbi Yudan said, is this a stipulation of the court? Should not the second be treated as one who said, “a shall be a nezirah[after] thirty days”66It is assumed that the first became impure; then her nezirut is suspended while she undergoes the purification rite. Should the second woman’s vow be suspended while the nezirut of the first is suspended?? Rebbi Simeon follows his own opinion, for he said, it depends on the collection67This sentence does not belong here; it is from the end of Halakhah 6. The correct text is in Nazir: R. Simeon declares him not liable since his offering was not in the custom of offerers (Menachot 12:3" href="/Mishnah_Menachot.12.3">Mishnah Menaḥot 12:3). A vow is either valid or not, it cannot be intermittent..
תֶּן לִי חִיטִּין וּשְׂעוֹרִין כול׳. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי יוּדָן נִכְלָלִין בְּקָרְבָּן אֶחָד וְנִפְרָטִין בְּג׳ קָרְבָּנוֹת. הֵיךְ עֲבִידָא. פְּרוֹטָה חִיטִּין וּפְרוֹטָה שְׂעוֹרִין וּפְרוֹטָה כוּסְמִין נִכְלָלִין בְּקָרְבָּן אֶחָד נִפְרְטִין לְג׳ קָרְבָּנוֹת. פְּרוֹטָה שְׁלִישׁ חִיטִּין פְּרוֹטָה שְׁלִישׁ שְׂעוֹרִין פְּרוֹטָה שְׁלִישׁ כּוּסְמִין מָהוּ שֶׁיִּצְטָֽרְפוּ כוּלָּן. אִיתָא חֲמִי. אִילּוּ הָיוּ בְיָדוֹ כַמָּה מִינִין בִּפְרוֹטָה אֲפִילוּ כֵן נִכְלָלִין וְנִפְרָטִין. לֵיי דָא מִילָּה. לְחַייְבוֹ בְּקָרְבָּן. הָיוּ בְיָדוֹ ד׳ מִינִין. ב׳ מִינִין בִּפְרוֹטָה ב׳ מִינִין בְּב׳ פְרוֹטוֹת. אֲפִילוּ כֵן נִכְלָלִין וְנִפְרָטִין. דְּאָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יַנַּאי. וְשׁוֹאֵל אֲנִי בְשָׁלוֹם פְּלוֹנִי. חֲזָקָה לַכֹּל חָתַם. שׁוֹאֵל אֲנִי בְשָׁלוֹם פְּלוֹנִי. לֹא חָתַם אֶלָּא בִשׁאֵילַת שָׁלוֹם. רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר. שׁוֹאֵל אֲנִי בְשָׁלוֹם פְּלוֹנִי. חֲזָקָה לַכֹּל חָתַם. אֵי זֶהוּ כְלָל. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי מְגָרֵשׁ פְּלֹנִית וּפְלוֹנִי פְלֹנִית. אֵי זֶהוּ כְלָל. רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר. אָנוּ פְלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי מְגָֽרְשִׁין נָשֵׁינוּ מִמָּקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי. אָמַר רִבִּי זֵירָא. מוֹדֶה רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן שֶׁאִם הִזְכִּיר גֵּירוּשִׁין לְכָל־אַחַת וְאַחַת שֶׁצָּרִיךְ לִיתֵּן טֻפּוֹס וְעֵדִים לְכָל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד. חֵייְלֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן מֵהָדָא. שֶׁאֵינִי נֶהֱנֶה לָזֶה לָזֶה קָרְבָּן לָזֶה קָרְבָּן. צְרִיכִין פֶּתַח לְכָל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד׃ אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. מַתְנִיתָה מְסַייְעָה לְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. הָיָה כּוֹתֵב טֻפּוֹס לְכָל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד וְעֵדִים לְמַטָּה. אֶת שֶׁהָעֵדִים נִיקְרִין עִמּוֹ כָּשֵׁר׃ “Give me the wheat, and the barley,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the words of Rebbi Jehudah imply collectively one sacrifice, in detail three sacrifices69This determines the anonymous author of the Mishnah who makes the liability for sacrifices dependent on the way the vow is formulated as R. Jehudah. This is confirmed in the Shevuot.38a">Babli, 38a.. How is this? A detail wheat, a detail barley, a detail spelt. Collectively one sacrifice, in detail three sacrifices. Detail a third wheat, detail a third barley, detail a third spelt, are these taken together? Come and see; although he holds many details, even so they can be formulated collectively or in detail. In which respect? To make him liable for sacrifices. If he held four kinds, two kinds in one detail, two kinds on two details. even so they can be formulated collectively or in detail70Irrespective of the complication of the transaction, there always is a formulation of the oath which avoids mentioning any detail.. 71From here to the end of the Halakhah the text is from Gittin 9:6:2" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Gittin.9.6.2">Giṭtin 9:7, Notes 85–101. The following paragraph describes efforts by two men to divorce their wives with one document to save on costs for scribe and parchment. As Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: “And I am greeting X,” one can assume that he signed concerning everything; “I am greeting X,” he signed only for the greeting. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, “I am greeting X,” one can assume that he signed concerning everything. What means “collectively”? Rebbi Joḥanan said, “X divorces Y and Z U.” What means “collectively”? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, “We, X and Z, divorce our wives at place A.” Rebbi Ze`ira said, Rebbi Joḥanan agrees that if he mentions divorce for each one separately that he needs the typical text72While the Giṭtin text everywhere has טוֹפֶס “boilerplate document” which possibly is Accadic (from the Sumerian) ṭuppum “document”, the spelling here indicates Greek τύπος “figure, form” used as “prescribed form” (of the document.) and witnesses for each one separately. The strength of Rebbi Joḥanan is from the following: “ ‘That I shall not benefit from this one; a qorban for this one and a qorban for that one.’ Each single one needs a separate opening.73Mishnah Nedarim 9:7.” Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “If he wrote a separate text for each of them and the witnesses signed at the end, [only] the one with which the witnesses are read is valid.74Gittin 9:6:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Gittin.9.6.1">Mishnah Giṭtin 9:7.”
שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר. פְּרָט רִבִּי מֵאִיר כְּלָל לְרִבִּי יְהוּדָה. פְּרָט רִבִּי יְהוּדָה כְּלָל לְרִבִּי מֵאִיר. רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי זֵירָא. מִילֵּיהוֹן דְּרַבָּנִן אָֽמְרִין שֶׁאֵין פְּרָטוֹ שֶׁלְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר כְּלָלוֹ שֶׁלְּרִבִּי יְהוּדָה. דָּמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יַנַּאי. וְשׁוֹאֵל אֲנִי בְשָׁלוֹם פְּלוֹנִי. חֲזָקָה לַכֹּל חָתַם. שׁוֹאֵל אֲנִי בְשָׁלוֹם פְּלוֹנִי. לֹא חָתַם אֶלָּא בִשׁאֵילַת שָׁלוֹם. אִם אוֹמֵר אַתְּ. פְּרָט רִבִּי מֵאִיר כְּלָל לְרִבִּי יְהוּדָה אָמַר. שׁוֹאֵל אֲנִי בְשָׁלוֹם פְּלוֹנִי. חֲזָקָה לַכֹּל חָתַם. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. מַתְנִיתָה אָֽמְרָה שֶׁאֵין פְּרָטוֹ שֶׁלְּרִבִּי יְהוּדָה כְּלָלוֹ שֶׁלְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר. דְּתַנִּינָן. רִבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר. אֲפִילּוּ אָמַר. חִיטָּה וּשְׂעוֹרָה וְכוּסֶּמֶת. חַייָב בְּכָל־אַחַת וְאַחַת׃ וְלֵית אִינָּשׁ אֲמַר אֲפִילוּ אֶלָּא מִכְּלַל דְמוֹדֶה בְקַדְמִיתָא. אָמַר רִבִּי חִינְנָא. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר בֵּין שֶׁאָמַר. חִיטִּין וּשְׂעוֹרִין וְכוּסְמִין. בֵּין שֶׁאָמַר. חִיטִּין שְׂעוֹרִין כּוּסְמִין. כְּלָל וּפְרָט הוּא. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יְהוּדָה אִם אָמַר. חִטִּין וּשְׂעוֹרִין וְכוּסְמִין. כְּלָל וּפְרָט הוּא. אִם אָמַר. חִטִּין שְׂעוֹרִין כּוּסְמִין. כְּלָל שֶׁאֵין עִמּוֹ פְרָט. 75Gittin 9:6:2" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Gittin.9.6.2">Giṭtin 9:7, Notes 93–101. The omissions in the Giṭtin text show that the text here is original. (This has been recognized in the text there.) Samuel said. the detailed statement for Rebbi Meїr is the general statement for Rebbi Jehudah; the detailed statement for Rebbi Jehudah is the general statement for Rebbi Meїr. Rebbi Samuel said in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira, the words of the rabbis show that the detailed statement for Rebbi Meïr is not the general statement for Rebbi Jehudah and the detailed statement for Rebbi Jehudah is not the general statement for Rebbi Meïr, as Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: “And I am greeting X,” one can assume that he signed concerning everything; “I am greeting X,” he only signed for the greeting. If you would say that the detailed statement for Rebbi Meїr is the general statement for Rebbi Jehudah, even if he said “I am greeting X,” can one assume that he signed everything? Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah implies that the detailed statement for Rebbi Jehudah is not the general statement for Rebbi Meїr, as we have stated: “Rebbi Meїr says, even if he says, ‘wheat, and barley, and spelt,’ he is liable for each single one;” and nobody says “even” unless he agrees to an earlier statement. Rebbi Ḥinena said, in Rebbi Meïr’s opinion, whether he said, “wheat, and barley, and spelt,” or “wheat, barley, spelt,” it is a general statement and details. In Rebbi Jehudah’s opinion, if he said, “wheat, and barley, and spelt,” it is a general statement and details. If he said “wheat, barley, spelt,” it is a general statement without details76Since he reads the words as singulars, not collectives, the entire statement is one unit: “I am holding for you not even a single grain each of wheat, barley, spelt”..