- Machlokes about swearing against multiple claims (לא לך ולא לך)
The Mishnah discussed one who swore to deny multiple claims, and a Baraisa lists four opinions: (1) Rebbe Meir says: כלל – if he included all the claims in a single denial, he brings only one korban, but פרט – if he specified the denials separately, he is liable to separate korbanos (as will be explained). (2) Rebbe Yehudah holds he is liable separately if he said "שבועה לא לך ולא לך ולא לך" – “An oath I do not owe money to you, and not to you, and not to you.” (3) Rebbe Eliezer says the shevuos are only separated if he said the word "שבועה" at the end. (4) Rebbe Shimon holds he must say an independent "שבועה" term for each claim to be liable separately. Shmuel says that the case Rebbe Meir defines as a כלל – inclusive shevuah (with one korban), Rebbe Yehudah considers a פרט – specifying shevuah (with separate korbanos). This refers to the case of "לא לך ולא לך". The case Rebbe Yehudah considers a כלל ("לא לך לא לך" without a vav), Rebbe Meir considers a פרט. Rebbe Yochanan says everyone agrees that "ולא לך" separates the shevuos, and they only argue about "לא לך".
- Combining different claims for a פרוטה
The Mishnah taught that if one demanded the wheat and barley and spelt that he had in his possession, and the defendant swore שאין לך בידי כלום – “that you have nothing in my possession,” there is only a single korban. If he swore שאין לך בידי חטין ושעורין וכוסמין – “that you do not have wheat, and [not] barley, and [not] spelt in my possession,” they obligate separate korbanos. Rebbe Yochanan says: פרוטה מכולם מצטרפת – a perutah’s worth of value can be combined from all of [the grains] for the minimum shiur to obligate a korban. Rav Acha and Ravina argued about the Mishnah’s law that enumerating the grains obligates multiple korbanos, and the application of Rebbe Yochanan’s ruling. One said: אפרטי מיחייב – he is liable for the specifications (i.e., the listed grains), but אכללי לא מיחייב – he is not additionally liable for an inclusive general [shevuah]. His opening words "שאין לך בידי" – that you do not have in my possession are not considered an independent shevuah jointly denying all the grains. As such, Rebbe Yochanan’s ruling would not apply in this case, but in the Mishnah’s first case. The other Amora said: אכללי נמי מיחייב – he is also liable for an inclusive general shevuah, and Rebbe Yochanan’s ruling is relevant here as well.
- שבועת הדיינין
The sixth Perek primarily discusses the shevuah of מודה במקצת – one who admits to part [of a claim]. It begins: שבועת הדיינין – the oath of judges (for מודה במקצת) is only imposed when הטענה שתי כסף וההודאה בשוה פרוטה – the claim is for at least two silver [ma’os] and the admission is for at least a perutah. Furthermore, אם אין ההודאה ממין הטענה פטור – if the admission is not about the same item as the claim, he is exempt from swearing. For example, if he claimed two (ma’os) of silver, and the נתבע responded that he has only has copper worth a perutah of his, he does not swear, since the admission is a different material than the claim. However, if he claimed both two [ma’os of] silver and a perutah, and the נתבע admitted to having a perutah, he must swear, having admitted to part of the claim. The Mishnah gives several other examples, including טענו חטין והודה לו בשעורין – where he claimed from his wheat and [the נתבע] admitted to him barley. Rabban Gamliel disagrees with this principle and obligates a shevuah for such partial admissions.