Yerushalmi Shevuot 5:2 ירושלמי שבועות ה׳:ב׳

MISHNAH: What is an oath about a deposit? He said to him, “give me the deposit which you hold for me.” “An oath that I am holding nothing of yours;³⁴This is the oath from his own mouth.” or that he said to him, “I am holding nothing of yours;” “I am putting an oath upon you” and he said “Amen”³⁵This is the oath from another’s mouth.; this one is liable. If he made him swear five times whether in court or out of court and he denied, he is liable for each single one. Rebbi Simeon said, what is the reason? Because he may return and admit³⁶The rule that “after he told, he does not return to tell” (Halakhah 4:3, Note 30) restricts witnesses but not parties to a trial..

HALAKHAH: “What is an oath about a deposit,” etc. ³⁷This Halakhah is a reworking of Halakhah 4:3 with in most cases correctly switching “here” (5:21) and “there” (5:1) and “oath of testimony” and “oath of deposit”. The explanation of equal cut is taken from Yebamot 11:1 (Notes 30,34) as indicated in the Notes to 4:3. The text of G ends at the start of this Halakhah.A person, a person. Since here it is from his own words, also there from his own words. Since there it is from others’ words, also here it is from others’ words. Rebbi Meїr explains the equal cut at the place it comes from: Since here it is said about his own words, so also here³⁸Obviously this should read “there.” about his own words. Also the rabbis explain the equal cut which was said about it. Since others’ words said there are in court, also others’ words said here are in court.

³⁹This paragraph is a new question, with the arguments about oaths of testimony and deposits switched. In structure and argument it is completely parallel to 4:3, Notes 34,35. Rebbi Jeremiah asked: Is a relative not liable for an oath about deposits formulated by others? Can we hear it from the following: since they inferred formulation by others for an oath about deposits only from oaths about testimony, and since there relatives are not liable, so they neither are here? Rebbi Yose said, relatives here can be inferred from non-relatives there.

Rebbi Yudan the Cappadocian asked: He made him swear five times by the formulation of others out of the court: would he not be liable only once⁴⁰If this refers to oaths about deposits, this would be the Mishnah and there would be no room for any question. It seems therefore that the question is asked about oaths of testimony and the hypothesis is that there should be liability for each one of the oaths.? Rebbi Yose said, is this not the Mishnah: “Rebbi Simeon said, what is the reason? Because they can come back and admit?” But here, since they cannot come back and admit, they are liable only once.

Rebbi Jeremiah asked: If he made him swear five times, since Rebbi Meїr considered “by his own words” as in court, would this determine the sacrifice on the first occasion, even without request⁴¹This is a bad adaptation of the text in 4:3. Following R. Meїr, since assent to an oath formulated by others is inferred from oaths about testimony, if applied to money matters does this need a claim by the other party? There can be no question about “by his own words” since that is what Lev. 5:20 ff. is all about. It is difficult to imagine a situation in which others would formulate an oath if they have no claim.? It should come like the following:⁴²This is a mangled quote from a text similar to the end of Tosephta 4:1: “He said to him, give me the deposit which you hold for me. Why do you go after me? An oath that I am holding nothing of yours. This one is liable and has to pay for the value of the object, an added fifth, and bring a reparation sacrifice for two tetradrachmas, in distinction from an oath about testimony.”
A clear sign of the corruption is the use of the plural in the words of the claimant which makes no sense in a question about deposits. “Why do you go after us? An oath that we do not know any testimony relevant for you. He pays the value plus a fifth and brings a reparation sacrifice for two tetradrachmas, in distinction from an oath about testimony.”

Would he be “not liable” from others’ mouth for real estate? From others’ mouth would he be liable for a reparation sacrifice worth two šeqalim⁴³For Babylonian sources (Babli 37b, Tosephta 4:1) it is obvious that the oath applies to claims for real estate which have to be proven by documents.?