Shevuos, Chapter 5, Mishnah 3. This mishnah deals with several cases of the oath of a deposit, and with the circumstances in which a person becomes liable for multiple oaths.
Five claimants at once:
"Hayu chamishah tov'in oso, amru lo: Ten lanu pikadon sheyesh lanu b'yadecha" - five people claim that objects of theirs are deposited in his hands. If he answered "Shevuah she'ein lachem b'yadi" - "I swear that I have nothing of yours" - in a single inclusive statement, then "eino chayav ela al ha'echad": if he swore falsely, he is liable to bring only one offering for a false oath.
But if he said "Shevuah she'ein lecha b'yadi, v'lo lecha, v'lo lecha" - specifying each one separately - he is liable for each and every one, since the word "shevuah" that he said at the outset refers back to each claimant individually.
On this point the Tannaim disagreed, and two further opinions are recorded in the mishnah:
Rabbi Eliezer: "Ad sheyomar shevuah ba'acharonah" - even though he opened with the word "shevuah," that is not enough; he must also close his statement with the word "shevuah," to show that he intended a separate oath for each and every one: "I swear that I have nothing of yours, and nothing of yours, and nothing of yours - by an oath." Only then does the oath take effect on each one separately.
Rabbi Shimon: "Ad sheyomar shevuah l'chol echad v'echad" - he must use the language of an oath with respect to each claimant individually: "and nothing of yours by an oath, and nothing of yours by an oath, and nothing of yours by an oath," and only then is he liable for each and every one.
One claimant with multiple claims:
The mishnah now presents a similar case, except that here a single claimant is making multiple claims: "Ten li pikadon u'tsumes yad, gezel va'aveidah sheyesh li b'yadcha" - "Give me the deposit, the loan, the stolen item and the lost item that I have in your possession":
Pikadon - an object he deposited with him.
Tsumes yad - money he lent him.
Gezel - an object he stole from him.
Aveidah - his lost item that is in the other's possession.
If he answered "Shevuah she'ein lecha b'yadi" in a single inclusive statement, he is liable only once, even though the claim included multiple items. But if he said "Shevuah she'ein lecha b'yadi pikadon u'tsumes yad v'gezel va'aveidah" - he is liable for each and every one, since he was not required to go back and itemize them, and it would have been enough for him to say, "I do not have your property in my possession"; and since he did specify each one, it is treated as a separate oath. This is the opinion of the Tanna Kamma.
The Tosafos Yom Tov notes that Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Shimon, who disagreed in the first part of the mishnah, would say the same here as well: in their view one must say "shevuah" at the end, or say "shevuah" for each and every item.
Wheat, barley and spelt:
The next case: "Ten li chittin u'se'orin v'chusmin she'yesh li b'yadecha" - "Give me the wheat, barley and spelt that you are holding for me." If he answered "Shevuah she'ein lecha b'yadi" - "I swear that I hold nothing of yours" - he is liable for only one offering. But if he said "Shevuah she'ein lecha b'yadi chittin u'se'orin v'chusmin" - "I swear that I hold no wheat, barley or spelt of yours" - he is liable to a separate oath offering for each one. Here too Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Shimon disagree, one requiring the word "shevuah" at the end and the other requiring "shevuah" for each and every item.
And what is the law if he used the singular form - a grain of wheat, a grain of barley, a grain of spelt - which could be understood as a single kernel? On this they disagreed:
Rabbi Meir: He is liable for each and every one, because the singular form does not refer to one lone seed but to the species as a whole, and thus refers to an amount greater than a single kernel.
The Sages: He is not liable, since the intent is a single kernel, which is not worth a perutah, and one does not become liable to an oath offering for something that is not worth a perutah.
In summary: In this Mishnah we learned that one who swears with a single all inclusive statement - whether to five claimants or regarding four claims of a single claimant - is liable for only one offering; whereas one who specifies each claimant and each claim separately is liable for each and every one. Rabbi Eliezer requires that the word "shevuah" be said at the end, and Rabbi Shimon requires that "shevuah" be said for each and every one. At the end, Rabbi Meir and the Sages disagreed about a claim stated in the singular, whether its intent is the species as a whole or a single kernel that is not worth a perutah.