Shevuot 38B

או דלמא אכל חדא וחדא מיחייב?

Or perhaps he is liable for his oath concerning each and every claim made by each claimant.

תא שמע, דתני רבי חייא: הרי כאן עשרים חטאות. היכי דמי? אי דפריש ⁠– רבי חייא מנינא אתא לאשמועינן? אלא לאו דלא פריש ⁠– ושמע מינה פרטא הוי?

The Talmud suggests: Come and hear a proof from that which R' Ḥiyya taught in a baraita: There are 20 sin-offerings here that the defendant must bring. The Talmud elaborates: What are the circumstances of the baraita? If the defendant specified each claim of each of the claimants in his oath, does R' Ḥiyya come to teach us a number? Obviously, the defendant is liable to bring 20 offerings. Rather, is it not that the baraita is referring to a case where he did not specify an oath to each claimant, but he specified it to the first claimant and said: And neither are yours, to each of the remaining claimants? And therefore, conclude from the baraita that such a denial is considered specific.

אנסת ופתית את בתי כו׳. אמר רבי חייא בר אבא, אמר רבי יוחנן: מאי טעמא דרבי שמעון? הואיל ועיקר קנס הוא תובע.

§ The Mishnah teaches that if one accuses another: You raped or you seduced my daughter, and the other says: I did not rape and I did not seduce your daughter, to which the father replied: I administer an oath to you, and the defendant said: Amen, the defendant is liable to bring a guilt-offering if it is a false oath, and R' Shimon deems him exempt from liability for a false oath on a deposit. The reason is that the payment for rape or seduction is a fine, and one does not pay a fine based on his own admission; therefore, he is also exempt from bringing a guilt-offering for having taken a false oath. The Rabbis hold that he is liable since he would have been liable to pay compensation for humiliation and degradation resulting from her being raped or seduced, which are monetary claims. R' Ḥiyya bar Abba says that R' Yoḥanan says: What is the reasoning of R' Shimon? R' Shimon holds that since the father is primarily claiming the fine and his claim to the other payments is secondary, the defendant is exempt from liability.