Shevuot 36: Liability/Exemptions in Shevuot HaPikadon, Oaths Regarding Securities

The rabbis continue to debate and better understand our last Mishna.  They discuss the wording of an oath, considering possible differences between and curse and an oath.  Notably the rabbis argue about whether or not simply responding "no" or "yes" can qualify as an oath.  They prefer that a person says these affirmations twice to allow it as an oath.  On cursing using the name of G-d, the rabbis return to their conversation and wonder about the difference between G-d's true name and all other names for G-d.  To be called a curse, one must use the positive or the negative in his/her statement.  The positive cannot be inferred to be the negative or vice versa.  

Moving to Perek IV, we begin with a new Mishna:

• A shevuot hapikadon, an oath regarding a security, applies to men, women, strangers, relatives, Kosher witnesses and invalid witnesses
• when swearing oneself outside of the beit din, he is liable only if he denies taking the oath while in the beit din
• the rabbis say that one is liable whether or not s/he denies, even outside of the beit din
• one is liable whether or not s/he knew the punishment for the oath or if s/he knew s/he was swearing falsely
• one is exempt if s/he believed that s/eh was swearing truthfully
• liability requires an offering worth at least two shekalim
• cheviot hapikadon is when one asks another for his deposit and the other swears that he is not holding a deposit; alternately, if one imposed this oath on him and he answered amen
• he is liable for each oath if the oath was imposed upon him five times regardless of his location in our outside of the beit din because each time he could have admitted guilt
• if five partners claim a deposit from another and he swore he gave no deposit, he is liable only once
• if he said "You, you, you, you, you do not have deposits from me", he is liable for each; Some rabbis say that he is liable only if he said "shevua" at the end of each accusation
• If one claims that another has a deposit, loan, theft of his and an aveidah, a lost object, and the other says "I have nothing of yours", he is liable only once
• If he named each object in his denial, he is liable for each one
• same goes for one denying having another's wheat barley or spelt
• if one denies raping or enticing the other's daughter, he is liable if the oath is imposed upon him and he answers "amen"
• Rabbi Shimon says he is exempt because he would not pay the fine anyway
• The Sages say that he would pay for boshet, embarrassment and pegam, damages due to his own admission
• if one denies stealing the other's ox and an oath is imposed upon him and he says "amen", he is liable
• if he admits to stealing the ox but not slaughtering or selling it and the oath is imposed upon him and he says "amen", he is exempt
• If one said, "your ox killed my ox" and the other denied it and the oath was imposed upon him and he answered "amen", he is liable
• if one said "you wounded me" and another denied it and the oath was imposed upon him and he answered "amen", he is liable
• If one said "your ox killed my Cana'ani slave" and the other denied it and the oath was imposed upon him and he answered "amen", he is exempt: he would not pay the fine even if he admitted his transgression
• If one's Cana'ani slave said "you knocked out my tooth", or "you blinded my eye" and the other denied it and the oath was imposed upon the other by the slave and he said "amen", he is exempt

The general rule is defined: if the defendant would have had to pay due to his own admission, he is liable.  If not, he is exempt.