Shevuos, Chapter 4, Mishnah 5. This mishnah deals with a person who administers the oath of testimony regarding several different items, and it establishes that depending on how the response is worded, we determine whether each item counts as an oath in its own right, or whether the whole thing counts as only a single oath.
The wording of the oath as administered by the claimant:
The claimant turns to two potential witnesses and says to them: "mashbia ani aleichem, im lo savo'u useidu'ni sheyeish li b'yad p'loni pikadon u'sesumas yad v'gezel va'aveidah" - "I impose an oath upon you, if you will not come and testify for me that so-and-so holds property of mine: a deposit, a loan, a stolen object and a lost object." In a single oath he includes several claims:
"pikadon" - an object that was deposited with him.
"tesumas yad" - money of a loan placed in his hands.
"gezel" - an object that he stole from him.
"aveidah" - a lost object of his that is in the other man's possession.
The witnesses answer: "shevuah she'ein anu yod'in lecha eidus" - "We swear that we know no testimony on your behalf," a general answer that does not mention each item separately. The law in this case: "ein chayavin ela al achas" - even though the oath included several claims, they are liable for only one oath of testimony.
When the witnesses spell out the items on their own:
But if the witnesses themselves answer: "shevuah she'ein anu yod'in sheyeish lecha b'yad p'loni pikadon u'milvah v'gezel va'aveidah" - "We swear that we do not know that so-and-so holds a deposit of yours, or a loan, or a stolen object, or a lost object" - that is, they themselves enumerate each item: the deposited object, the loan, the stolen object and the lost object. Since they detailed each item separately, something that was not required of them at all - for they could have denied everything with one general statement - it is as though the oath is repeated with reference to each item on its own. Therefore the law is: "chayavin al kol achas v'achas" - they are liable to bring the offering for the oath of testimony for each and every claim separately.
A further example - types of grain:
The claimant says to two potential witnesses: "mashbia ani aleichem, im lo savo'u useidu'ni sheyeish li b'yad p'loni pikadon: chittin u'se'orin v'chusmin" - "I impose an oath upon you, if you will not come and testify for me that so-and-so holds a deposit of mine: wheat, barley and spelt." Here the entire claim is a single deposit, except that it includes different types of items. The witnesses answer: "shevuah she'ein anu yod'in lecha eidus" - "We swear that we know no testimony on your behalf," and therefore "ein chayavin ela al achas" - they are liable for only one oath, as in the law explained in the first part of the mishnah.
But if the witnesses themselves answer: "shevuah she'ein anu yod'in lecha eidus sheyeish lecha b'yad p'loni chittin u'se'orin v'chusmin" - "We swear that we know no testimony on your behalf that so-and-so holds wheat, barley and spelt of yours" - then "chayavin al kol achas v'achas" - they are liable for each and every one. The reason is the same: once the witnesses spelled out each kind on their own, something they did not need to do, it is evident that they view each statement as an oath in its own right, and therefore they are liable for each and every one.
In summary: in this mishnah we learned that when the claimant includes several claims in the oath he administers and the witnesses respond with a general denial - "We swear that we know no testimony on your behalf" - they are liable for only one oath. But when the witnesses themselves detail each item in their answer, whether the types of claims (deposit, loan, stolen object and lost object) or the types of items (wheat, barley and spelt), each statement is considered an oath in its own right, and they are liable for each and every one.