Yerushalmi Shevuot 5:3 ירושלמי שבועות ה׳:ג׳

MISHNAH: If five people were claiming from him and said to him, give us the deposit which you are holding for us. “An oath that I am not holding anything of yours’ ”; he is liable only once. “An oath that I am not holding anything of you, and of you, and of you;” he is liable for each one separately. Rebbi Eliezer says, on condition that he repeat “an oath” at the end. Rebbi Simeon says, not unless he repeat “an oath” for each single one⁴⁴In the Halakhah and in all parallel sources the name is not “R. Eliezer” but “R. Eleazar”. The latter name is correct as contemporary of R. Simeon; cf. R. Rabbinovicz, Diqduqe Soferim Ševuot, p. 78, Note ז.
The majority [following R. Meїr in Sifra Ḥova (Wayyiqra 2) Pereq 17(1)] holds that an oath addressed to a group of people is a single oath, but one addressed to separate individuals counts as multiple oaths according to the number of persons mentioned in the oath. R. Eleazer holds that this is true only if the person swearing indicates that he intends the one sentence to be considered a separate oath for each individual addressed, by repeating at the end that “this is an oath.” Without such a final statement the mention of “oath” refers only to the first subject addressed in the oath. R. Simeon holds that a statement formulated as one oath is one oath; there is liability for multiple sacrifices only if it was clearly said that separate oaths were made for each claimant..

HALAKHAH: “If five people were claiming from him,” etc. I could think that also for an oath about a deposit He did not make one assenting to an oath like making an oath? Rebbi Eleazar said, this is not so. But also for an oath about a deposit we are treating one assenting to an oath like one formulating an oath⁴⁵The text as it stands is unintelligible. The first “also” contradicts what was stated in Halakhah 4:5 that the rules of oaths about testimony and deposits are derived from one another. An oath about testimony by its nature is imposed by another party; there it was established that the reluctant witness also is liable if he himself formulates the oath that he will appear as a witness and then reneges. Therefore, this “also” has to be deleted.
The oath about a deposit by its nature is offered by the person denying that he is holding anything. The Babli (34b) and Sifra Ḥova (Wayyiqra 2) Pereq11(3) state that in this case an oath imposed by another person does not trigger the liability for a sacrifice. The Yerushalmi considers this possibility and rejects it..

Rebbi Joḥanan said: The words of Rebbi Eleazar, only if he mentioned “oath” at the start and at the end⁴⁶Then multiple sacrifices are due for multiple lies.. The words of the Sages, if he mentioned “oath” at the start but not at the end. Or if he mentioned it at the end but not at the start in the opinion of the rabbis he brings a sacrifice for each single one, in Rebbi Eleazar’s opinion he brings one sacrifice for everything⁴⁷In both cases, a single mention of “oath” at the end is equivalent in force to a single mention of “oath” at the start.. If he mentions “oath” at the start but did not mention it at the end, does the oath fall on the middle ones⁴⁸This is a question only for R. Eleazar. Does R. Eleazar only require one sacrifice because he considers everything together as one statement, or does he restrict the oath to the denial of the claim of the first person mentioned? If the denial of the claim of the first person was correct, but some denials to other persons were false, in the first case the trustee would have to bring a sacrifice but not in the second.? Come and see: If he had mentioned it at the start and the end, did he mention it for the middle ones? But you are saying that it is valid; so here it is valid⁴⁹Since the difference between R. Eleazar and R. Simeon is that the latter requires a separate mention of “oath” for each single denial while R. Eleazar requires only two irrespective of the number of denials in between, it is obvious that the first eventuality mentioned in the preceding Note is the correct interpretation..

Rebbi Yudan from Cappadocia asked: What about “an oath that neither wheat, nor barley, nor spelt I am holding for you⁵⁰The wording is that of Mishnah 5. However, there one has to translate “wheat, or barley, or spelt” and the oath is true only if he holds neither kind. But here the oath is true if he does not hold at least one of them. This follows from de Morgan’s formulas (using v “or”, & “and”, ¬ “not”):
¬(AvBvC) = ¬A&¬B&¬C,
¬(A&B&C) = ¬Av¬Bv¬C.”? Is it as if he had mentioned “oath” at beginning and end⁵¹This is a question following R. Eleazar, assuming that he disagrees not only in the case of Mishnah 3 but in all similar cases.? Since the oath would be confirmed by any one of them, he is liable only once⁵²It is impossible to read this as three distinct oaths; there can be no disagreement between the rabbis and R. Eleazar in this case.. “I am not holding for you wheat, or barley, or spelt, an oath,” is this as if he had mentioned “oath” at beginning and end? Since the oath would be confirmed by any one of them, he is liable only once⁵³This is a question for the rabbis. Does placing the mention of “oath” at the end of a sentence intended as oath constitute a second oath?. Is it so if this were a blurted oath? “An oath that I shall not eat; I shall not eat, an oath”? In the rabbis’ opinion he brings a sacrifice for each one⁵⁴Since this clearly represents two distinct oaths.. In Rebbi Eleazar’s opinion does he bring one for the entirety? Even Rebbi Eleazar will agree that he is only emphasizing the prohibitions⁵⁵Cf. Halakhah 3:11, Note 161. Since there is only one subject, R. Eleazar should consider the two clauses as parts of one statement and require only one sacrifice. But he will agree that the second statement is meant to reinforce the first; therefore if he breaks one he breaks both and must bring two sacrifices.. It only would be problematic if it were about the past. “An oath that I did not eat; I did not eat, an oath.” In the rabbis’ opinion he brings two sacrifices (for each one). In Rebbi Eleazar’s opinion he brings one (for each)⁵⁶For the rabbis, the two clauses are two separate oaths; for R. Eleazar they are two parts of one oath. Since the oaths have only one object, the references to “each one” or “all of them” are copyists’ errors induced by the use of these expressions in the other cases..

Rebbi Abbahu, Rebbi Jeremiah⁵⁷This name tradition is impossible. Either one has to read R. Jeremiah, R. Abbahu, or, since the question fits R. Jeremiah’s style, instead of R. Abbahu one has to read R. Abba (or the name of another last generation Amora.) asked: If one said, “an oath wheat and wheat I am not holding;” what? Let us hear from the following: “Not from place X, not from place Y,” he is liable. Rebbi Yose said, they considered a multiplicity of places like a multiplicity of kinds. If he had said, not from this place, not from this place; it would have been useful⁵⁸If the same object is mentioned twice in an oath. There is no proof from a baraita that a false oath “I am not holding grain from place X nor from place Y” is considered only one oath. To be applicable to the question the same place name would have to be repeated..

Rebbi Ḥaggai asked: “10 oaths that I am not holding;” what?

Rebbi Yose asked: “An oath, an oath that I am not holding for you,” what? Rebbi Yose said, let us hear from the following: “ ‘An oath that I shall not eat this loaf; an oath that I shall not eat it’. Then he ate it. He is liable only once.⁵⁹Mishnah 3:8 (3:7 in most independent Mishnah mss.). This clause is missing in the Mishnah of the Yerushalmi; another indication that the Mishnah of the Leiden ms. does not have the same source as the Yerushalmi Tractates.” Because he mentioned “this”. Therefore, had he not mentioned “this” we would be liable for each one. Is it the same for a blurted oath? “An oath that I shall eat carcass meat, and wheat bread, and barley bread, and spelt bread.” Since he is not liable for carcass meat⁶⁰Mishnah 3:5; this argument follows R. Simeon. he is not liable for the remainder.