Mishnah 5 in the fifth chapter of Maseches Shevuos continues the discussion we began in the previous mishnah: cases of an oath concerning a deposit that involve a mixture of a claim for a fine and a claim for money, in which we must clarify exactly what the defendant swore falsely about, and whether his denial constitutes a denial of money that obligates him in a korban.
"Ganavta es shori":
A person claims against his fellow, "ganavta es shori" - "you stole my ox," "vehu omer lo ganavti" - and he says, "I did not steal it." The claimant said to him, "mashbia ani" - "I impose an oath upon you," "ve'amar amen" - and he answered, "Amen," accepting the oath upon himself - he is obligated to bring the korban for an oath concerning a deposit. The reason: although theft carries an obligation of double payment, the fine is only the doubled portion, while the principal that the thief owes is full-fledged money. It emerges that even though a fine is involved here, the very definition of theft includes a claim for the principal as well, and his denial is therefore a denial of money.
"Ganavti, aval lo tavachti velo macharti":
By contrast, if the defendant answered "ganavti" - "I did steal it," truthfully admitting to the theft of the ox, "aval lo tavachti velo macharti" - "but I did not slaughter it and I did not sell it": the claimant asserted against him that he slaughtered the ox or sold it, in both of which cases he would be liable for fivefold payment, and the defendant denies the slaughtering and the sale. He said to him, "mashbia ani" - "I impose an oath upon you," and he answered "amen" - he is exempt. The reason: the only thing he denied and swore falsely about is the additional sums, which are nothing but a fine. He admitted to the theft itself and did not deny it, and his entire denial revolved around a pure fine alone.
An ox that killed an ox as opposed to an ox that killed a slave:
"Hemis shorcha es shori" - "your ox killed my ox": the claimant says that his fellow's ox killed his ox, "vehu omer lo hemis" - and he says, "it did not kill it." He said to him, "mashbia ani" - "I impose an oath upon you," "ve'amar amen" - and he answered, "Amen" - he is obligated, since this is a monetary claim in every respect.
"Hemis shorcha es avdi" - "your ox killed my slave": the claimant says that his fellow's ox killed his slave, "vehu omer lo hemis" - and he says, "it did not kill him." He said to him, "mashbia ani" - "I impose an oath upon you," "ve'amar amen" - and he answered, "Amen" - he is exempt. The reason: the Torah established that when a person's ox kills his fellow's slave, the owner owes a fixed fine of thirty shekel, and this sum has no connection whatsoever to the value of the slave. And since it is a fine, and the rule that one who admits to a fine is exempt applies, he could have admitted and been exempt, so his denial is not a denial of money.
Physical injury as opposed to knocking out a slave's tooth or blinding his eye:
"Chavalta bi" - "you injured me": the claimant says that his fellow damaged his body, made a wound in him and drew blood from him, and the other replies that he did not injure him at all. He accepted the oath upon himself and said "amen" - he is obligated, since this is a monetary claim.
"Amar lo avdo: hipalta es shini, simisa es eini" - his slave said to him, "you knocked out my tooth, you blinded my eye": the Torah establishes that a master who knocked out his slave's tooth or blinded his eye must set him free. The master replies that he did not knock out his tooth and did not blind his eye, and the slave imposes an oath upon him, and he answers "amen" - he is exempt. The reason: freeing the slave is nothing but a fine, a punishment for having caused him this bodily damage, and it does not necessarily correspond to the monetary damage actually caused, and therefore one does not bring a korban for such an oath.
This is the rule:
Wherever, even had he admitted to causing the damage, he would still have been obligated to pay - there is no exemption here of one who admits to a fine, and consequently his denial is a denial of money and he is obligated to bring the korban for an oath. But wherever, according to his admission, he would not have paid, meaning that one who admits to it is exempt - he is also exempt from bringing a korban for an oath concerning a deposit, since he is not truly denying money, for he could have admitted and been exempt.
In summary: in this mishnah we learned four pairs of cases that distinguish between a monetary claim and a claim for a fine regarding an oath concerning a deposit: denying the theft of the ox as opposed to denying only the slaughtering and the sale; an ox that killed an ox as opposed to an ox that killed a slave; physical injury as opposed to knocking out a slave's tooth or blinding his eye. The rule that emerges from all of them is one: the measure for obligation in a korban is whether, by his admission, he would have been obligated to pay, and only then is his denial considered a denial of money.