(Mishnah): How is Shevu'as ha'Pikadon? Shimon told Levi 'give to me the deposit you are holding for me', and Levi swore 'you do not have a deposit with me', or Shimon imposed this oath on him and he answered Amen. (If Levi was lying,) he is liable.

If he imposed the oath on him five times, whether in front of Beis Din or not in front of Beis Din, and Levi denied the deposit, he is liable for each oath;

R. Shimon says, what is the reason? It is because each time he could have admitted.

(Gemara): It says here (Shevu'as ha'Pikadon) "Nefesh", and it says [about Shevu'as ha'Edus] Nefesh. Just like here one who swore himself [is liable], also here one who swore himself. Just like there [one who is Mushba] through others [is liable], also there through others.

R. Meir expounds a Gezeirah Shavah from the source (Dun Minah u'Minah). Just like by himself here is [even] outside of Beis Din, also by himself there is [even] outside of Beis Din;

Rabanan expound a Gezeirah Shavah according to the matter in which it is said (what is learned, i.e. Dun Minah v'Uki b'Asra). Just like through others said there is [only] in Beis Din [like the law of Shevu'as ha'Edus], also through others here is [even] outside of Beis Din (like the law of Shevu'as ha'Pikadon. We explained this like MEICHAL HA'MAYIM).

Question (R. Yirmeyah): A relative Mushba through others for Shevu'as ha'Pikadon, is he is exempt [because the source for through others is from Shevu'as ha'Edus, which does not apply to relatives]?

Answer #1: We learn from the following. Since we learned through others in Shevu'as ha'Pikadon only from Shevu'as ha'Edus, just like there relatives are exempt, also here relatives are exempt.

Objection (and Implied Answer #2 - R. Yosi): Can we learn relatives here from strangers there?! (Only strangers can be witnesses, but even relatives can be Shomerim! There is no reason to distinguish relatives from strangers for Shevu'as ha'Pikadon; all are liable, even through others.)

Question (R. Yudan Kapudkiya): If one was Mushba [Shevu'as ha'Pikadon] through others five times in Beis Din, is he liable only once [according to R. Meir]?

Answer (R. Yosi): A Mishnah teaches this! R. Shimon says, what is the reason [why he is liable for each Shevu'as ha'Pikadon]? It is because he can retract and admit. Here, since they can retract and admit [to owing], they are liable for each one. (We explained this like KORBAN HA'EDAH.)

Question (R. Yirmeyah): If one was Mushba through others, since R. Meir makes swearing through others [liable] like in Beis Din, does it fix it for Korban and obligate for the first time, without a claim?

Answer: We learn from the following [Beraisa]. "Why do you pursue us? We swear that I we do not know testify for you!" One might have thought that they are liable - it says "v'Sham'ah Kol Alah", one who hears a voice [request to testify]. This excludes these, who do not hear a voice. This is unlike Shevu'as ha'Pikadon. (There, one is liable even without a claim. We explained this like KORBAN HA'EDAH.)

Questions: If one was Mushba [Shevu'as ha'Pikadon] through others about land, is he is exempt? If he was Mushba through others, is he liable an Asham for two Sela'im?

(Mishnah): If five partners claimed a deposit from Levi, and said "give to us our deposit in your hands", and he swore 'you do not have a deposit with me', he is liable only once;

If he swore "you do not have a deposit by me, not you and not you and not you... ', he is liable for each one.

R. Eliezer says, [he is liable for each] only if he said 'Shevu'ah' at the end;

R. Shimon says, [he is liable for each] only if he said 'Shevu'ah' to each.

(Gemara) Suggestion: Perhaps in Shevu'as ha'Pikadon, we do not make a Mushba like one who swears himself!

Rejection (R. Lazar): This is not so. Rather, even for Shevu'as ha'Pikadon, a Mushba is like one who swears himself.

(R. Yochanan): (In our Mishnah, R. Eliezer said that he is liable for each only if he said 'Shevu'ah' at the end.) R. Eliezer means that he says 'Shevu'ah' at the beginning and the end;

Chachamim [hold that he brings for each even] if he said 'Shevu'ah' at the beginning but not at the end, or at the end but not at the beginning.

If he said 'Shevu'ah' at the end but not at the beginning, according to Chachamim he brings a Korban for each one. According to R. Eliezer he brings one Korban.

If he said 'Shevu'ah' at the beginning and the end, according to Chachamim he brings two Korbanos for each one. According to R. Eliezer he brings one Korban for each one.

Question: If he said 'Shevu'ah' at the beginning but not at the end, does it take effect on those in the middle? (We know that R. Eliezer obligates only once. We ask whether the Shevu'ah applies to each, or if it is only on the first, so if the first was Ones, he is exempt.)

Answer: See - if he said 'Shevu'ah' at the beginning and the end [R. Eliezer says that he brings a Korban for each]. Did he mention Shevu'ah about each one, to say that it took effect? How did it take effect? (Rather, the first Shevu'ah applies to all, and the latter Shevu'ah obligates a separate Korban for each. We explained this like MEICHAL HA'MAYIM.)

Question (R. Yudan Kapudkiya): If he said "Shevu'ah, wheat, barley and spelt I do not owe to you", what is the law? Is he like one who mentioned Shevu'ah at the beginning and end? (Normally, one says "Shevu'ah, I do not owe", and then lists the Peratim. He changed the order to make a Shevu'ah on each; "I do not owe to you" at the end is like a closing mention of Shevu'ah. We explained this like HAGAHOS R. DINAR);

Or, since through this ("Shevu'ah") and this ("I do not owe") the Shevu'ah is sustained (he needed to say both, so there is nothing extra, and) he is liable only once?

Question: If he said "I do not owe to you wheat, barley and spelt, Shevu'ah", is he like one who mentioned Shevu'ah at the beginning and end?

Or, since through this ("Shevu'ah") and this ("I do not owe") the Shevu'ah is sustained (he needed to say both, so there is nothing extra, and) he is liable only once?

Suggestion: Is Shevu'as Bituy like this? "Shevu'ah that I will not eat, that I will not eat Shevu'ah" - according to Rabanan he brings a Korban for each one, and according to R. Eliezer he brings one for all of them?

Rejection: Even R. Eliezer agrees that he is like one who makes himself zealous about Isurim (he adds a Chiyuv for every time he said "I will not eat" - KORBAN HA'EDAH).

Remark: [Shevu'as Bituy] in the past is like this. "Shevu'ah that I did not eat, that I did not eat Shevu'ah" - according to Rabanan he brings two Korbanos for each [time he said "I did not eat"], and according to R. Eliezer he brings one for each.

Question (R. Avahu citing R. Yirmeyah): If he said "Shevu'ah wheat and wheat I do not owe to you", what is the law?

Answer (Beraisa): [If he swore] "I do not have of yours in place Ploni, and in place Almoni..." (he is liable for each, even if they are the same species. Also here, he is liable for each.)

Rebuttal (R. Yosi): [Perhaps Chachamim] made many places like many species. Had the [Beraisa] said "not in that place, not in that [same] place", properly [we could learn from it].

Question (R. Chagai): If he said "10 SHEVUOS I do not owe to you", what is the law?

Question (R. Yosi): If he said "Shevu'ah Shevu'ah I do not owe to you", what is the law?

Answer (R. Yosi): We learn from a Mishnah. If one said 'Shevu'ah that I will not eat this loaf, Shevu'ah that I will not eat it', and he ate it, he is liable once;

Inference: This is because he mentioned "this". Had he not mentioned "this", he would be liable for each one. (Here he did not mention "this", so he is liable for each one.)

(R. Shimon said that if he did not mention "Shevu'ah" regarding each species, it is all one Shevu'ah.) Also Shevu'as Bituy is like this. "Shevu'ah that I will eat Neveilah, wheat bread and barley bread and spelt bread", since he is exempt for the Neveilah, he is exempt for the rest (since it is one Shevu'ah. HAGAHOS R. DINAR - this belongs in the discussion after the coming Mishnah about R. Shimon's opinion.)