Talmud for Shevuot 8:1

MISHNAH: He¹The officiating priest. took the flour-offering from the Egyptian palm-leaf basket²See Mishnah 2:1., put it into a Temple vessel and laid that on her hands. The Cohen puts his hands under hers and performs the weave³The prescribed movements for the dedication of private offerings. The movements in the six directions (fore and aft, right and left, up and down) are imitated today as the motions of the palm-branch on Tabernacles.. He weaved, presented⁴Before the altar receives its part, the entire offering in the vessel is presented to the altar at its South-West corner., took a fistful and put it into the fire. The remainder is eaten by the priests⁵As are all offerings except those of a priest; cf. Lev. 6:7–11..

HALAKHAH: “What is an oath about testimony,” etc. A person, a person³¹A comparison of Lev. 5:1 about oaths concerning testimony and 5:21 about the person accused of larceny who swears falsely in purgation by oath; cf. Chapter 3:12, Note 165. The parallel use of identical terms is an equal cut which allows transfer of rules from one occurrence to the other.. Since there it is from his own words, also here from his own words. Since here it is from others’ words, also there it is from others’ words³²In v. 5:1 the potential witness hears the sound of an imprecation; others formulate the oath to which he is asked to assent. In 5:21 he himself formulates the oath to deny a deposit, or a loan, or robbery. The equal cut allows one to transfer one situation to the other; oaths about testimony may be formulated by the potential witness himself; oaths of a person accused of larceny may be formulated by the aggrieved party.. Rebbi Meїr explains the equal cut which was said here: Since there it is said about his own words, so also here about his own words. Also the rabbis explain the equal cut which was said here. Since others’ words said there are in court, also others’ words said here are in court³³This paragraph refers to the disagreement between R. Meїr and the rabbis in Mishnah 1.
The formulation here presupposes that one knows what was explained elsewhere about interpretation of equal cuts [Yebamot11:1 Notes 30,34 (Sanhedrin9:1); Chapter 5:2]. R. Meїr holds that the laws to be transferred are what can be read off the corresponding verses; the rabbis transfer laws only in the context of the verses on both sides.
Verse 5:21 reads, to deny a deposit … and he swears to a lie; it is understood that this creates guilt whether or not it was before a court. But testimony is before a court; therefore v. 5:1 only speaks of guilt incurred in a court trial. R. Meїr holds that an oath formulated by another person following the situation of v. 1 transferred to v. 21 cannot create liability for a sacrifice outside of court, but an oath pronounced by himself (v. 21) always creates such a liability. The rabbis hold that while we accept that the equal cut shows that oaths formulated by himself are covered by v. 1, the context of that verse forces the conclusion that one refers to court proceedings only..

Some want to understand it from here¹¹⁰The exclusions from oaths about deposits enumerated in the Mishnah.: An ox, or a donkey, or a sheep¹¹¹Ex. 22:9, about the oath of the paid trustee. Breaking, kidnapping, and dying are all mentioned in the verse.. Since these are particular in that they are subject to breaking, kidnapping, and dying, this excludes real estate which is not subject to breaking, kidnapping, and dying. I shall exclude real estate but shall not exclude slaves. Since these are particular in that they are subject to a fine, this excludes slaves which are not subject to a fine¹¹²The person who kidnaps a slave does not have to pay the double restitution exacted from a thief.. I shall exclude slaves but shall not exclude documents since they are subject to fines. Since these are particular in that they are subject to overcharging, this excludes documents which are not subject to overcharging¹¹³The thief of documents has to pay double restitution for the value of the paper on which the documents are written. On the other hand, documents are not traded as commodities but for the financial values of the contracts written on them. Commodities are subject to the rules of overcharging or underpaying; a transaction which differs more than +/- 16 ⅔% from the going market rate can be voided on the request of the injured party. Financial speculation, such as over the counter stock or bond trades, are not protected by this law (which is based on Lev. 25:14.). From here they say, if somebody sells documents to the spice trader¹¹⁴If an IOU has been paid, it can be sold as packaging material; then it is a commodity. Babli Bava meṣi`a56b, where the baraita is quoted as proof that the laws of overcharging apply to penny matters., it is subject to claims of overcharging. Rebbi Ismael explained: Or a person, if he would swear, a general statement. To cause evil or cause good, a detail. Anything which a person will blurt out, a repeat general statement. A general statement followed by a detail followed by a general statement, you only argue in the pattern of the detail¹¹⁵Halakhah 8:3, Note 83. However, this reference to Lev. 5:4 is out of place since the argument is about Ex. 22:9. The text should be similar to that of Mekhilta dR. Ismael Mišpaṭim15 (pp. 300–301): About anything criminal, a general statement. About an ox, or a donkey, or a sheep, detail. About anything lost, a repeat general statement.. Since the detail¹¹⁶In Ex. 22:9. is about monetary claims, [originating] from himself, which can be collected by court order, having monetary value, which is a fixed value, and are movables, and one is not liable for punishment and fines. Monetary claims, excluding one who said to another, give me the 200 denar which you promised me but never gave¹¹⁷A promise does not generate an enforceable claim.. [Originating] from himself, excluding one who said to another, you cursed me and shamed me, who is not liable¹¹⁸Since the paradigm is a deposit made by the claimant, the defendant’s oath is only about actions initiated by the claimant. Suits about matters initiated by the defendant’s actions cannot be settled by oaths.. Which can be collected by court order, excluding one who said to another, you raped or seduced X’s daughter¹¹⁹The only persons who can go to court are the woman or her father.. It has monetary value, excluding documents¹²⁰Since the value of the document is not determined by the cost of the paper on which it is written.. Which is a fixed value, excluding slaves¹²¹The value of the slave largely depends on his education, which has no standard value attached to it.. Movables, excluding real estate. One is not liable for punishment, excluding one who said to another, you set fire to my grain stack on the Sabbath; who is not liable¹²²No money can be recovered for actions which carry the death penalty, even if there are no eye witnesses and therefore no court procedures are possible.. One is not liable for fines, excluding double, quadruple, or quintuple restitution which are fines¹²³Only simple restitution of stolen property is within the purview of a civil court. Fines can be imposed only by a duly authorized criminal court where trials by oath are impossible..