Sifra
Vayikra Dibbura DeChovah, Chapter 16
Vayikra Dibbura DeChovah, Chapter 16
1) ("Or if he find a lost object and deny it, and swear falsely, in one of all [these things] wherein a man sins" [Vayikra 5:22]) And whence is it derived that he (sometimes) brings one (offering) for many things? From "in one."
2) How so? If one said: I swear that I will not drink, and he drank many beverages, whence is it derived that he is liable for only one (oath)? From "in one," etc.
3) I swear that I will not eat and he ate many foods, etc.
4) I might think that in the instance of an oath of pronouncement, where deliberate violation is not equated with unwitting violation, he is liable for one alone, but in a court-imposed oath, where deliberate violation is equated with unwitting violation, he is liable for each one; it is, therefore, written "in one," etc.
5) How so? If one said to another: Come and testify for me that so and so owes me wheat that I deposited with him last night and before that and he says: I have no testimony for you — Whence is it derived that he is liable for one alone? etc.
6) I might think that this is so because it is only one species. Whence do I derive that the same applies even if he says to him: Come and testify for me that so and so owes me wheat and barley and spelt, and he says: I swear that I have no testimony for you — Whence is it derived that he is liable for one alone? From, etc.
7) I might think that they are different types of (one) claim. Whence do I derive that the same applies even if he says to him: Come and testify for me that so and so owes me a pledge and a deposit and a theft and a lost object and he swears: I have no testimony for you — Whence is it derived that he is liable for one alone? From, etc.
8) I might think that this is so because he is only one claimant. Whence do I derive that the same applies even if five say to him: Come and testify for us that so and so owes us a pledge, etc.
9) I might think that in the instance of a court-imposed oath and an oath of pronouncement, (violation of) which is not punishable by kareth, he is liable for one alone; but in the instance of tumah of the sanctuary and of its consecrated objects, which is punishable by kareth, he is liable for each one, etc.
10) How so? If he became tamei and was aware of it and ate consecrated food, and (again) ate consecrated food, and in the end he became aware — Whence is it derived that he is liable for one alone, etc.
11) If he became tamei and was aware of it, and the tumah was hidden from him and he entered the sanctuary and left, and (again) entered the sanctuary and left and was not aware of it, and in the end he became aware — Whence is it derived that he is liable for one alone, etc.