Yerushalmi Shevuot 8:2 ירושלמי שבועות ח׳:ב׳

MISHNAH: He said to the unpaid keeper, “where is my ox?” He told him, “it died,” but it broke, or was abducted, or stolen, or lost⁷⁰These are the cases enumerated in Ex. 22:6,9, where the unpaid keeper swears but does not have to pay. Breakage refers to vessels, not to animals; it is included since it appears in the verse.. “It broke,” but it died, or was abducted, or stolen, or lost. “”It was abducted,” but it died, or broke, or was stolen, or lost. “It was stolen,” but it died, or broke, or was abducted, or lost. “It was lost,” but it died, or broke, or was abducted, or stolen. “I want you to swear;” he answered “Amen”. He is not liable⁷¹Even though he swore under a false category, since he swore correctly to the fact that he does not have to pay he is not liable for the sacrifice required for a false oath..

HALAKHAH: “He said to the unpaid keeper,” etc. ⁷⁷This paragraph is from Sanhedrin3:10, Notes 190–192. Rav said, he is not liable for a keeper’s oath but is liable because of a blurted oath. Rebbi Joḥanan said, since it is a religious duty to appease him, he is not liable because of a blurted oath. In Rav’s opinion, is there no religious duty to appease him? One appeases with truthful statements, not with lies.

Rebbi Joḥanan asked: May the oath of a deviant woman⁷⁸The suspected adulteress who is put under oath by the Cohen, Num. 5:22. be liable for a blurted oath? Where do we hold? If she is in error in sin and oath she is not deviant⁷⁹If she slept with a man thinking it was her husband and swears while in this belief, she is not forbidden to her husband and not deviant.. If she is intentional in sin and error there is no sacrifice⁸⁰There is no sacrifice for an intentional false oath.. Rav follows Rebbi Aqiba⁸¹This refers to Halakhah 3:1. R. Aqiba admits the possibility of sacrifices for inadvertent blurted oaths (Lev. 5:4) referring to past events as well as future ones but R. Ismael allows only future- directed blurted oaths. Rav (Chapter 3 Note 7) admits only past-directed blurted oaths; as just shown this is not possible in the case of the deviant woman.. If Rebbi Ismael⁸²R. Meïr explains the repetition “Amen, Amen” in Num. 5:22 that the first one is past directed, the second future directed. R. Ismael might agree that this is a special case where a biblical verse also requires the inclusion of references to past events. Then the question of R. Joḥanan might make sense since the possibility of an oath by a deviant woman depends on past events but the designation as blurted oath must depend on future happenings, not covered by the previous argument. would argue like Rebbi Meïr it would follow, since Rebbi Meïr said⁸³Mishnah Soṭah3:1.: “Amen that I was not defiled, Amen that I shall not be defiled.” But you may question this⁸⁴Since practice would follow neither R. Ismael nor R. Meïr there seems to be no point for R. Joḥanan’s question..