Shevuot 33aשבועות ל״ג א
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save "Shevuot 33a"
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
33aל״ג א

הא קיימא שניה

But the second set of witnesses still stands available to testify, so what loss did the first set cause the plaintiff when they denied knowledge of the matter?

אמר רבינא הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שהיתה שניה בשעת כפירת ראשונה קרובין בנשותיהן ונשותיהן גוססות מהו דתימא רוב גוססים למיתה קמ"ל (השתא מיהא לא שכיב):

Ravina said: What are we dealing with here? We are dealing with a case where the two witnesses in the second set were relatives through their wives at the time of the denial of the first set of witnesses. The two witnesses in the second set were married to two sisters, and brothers-in-law are unfit to serve as witnesses together. Therefore, the claim of the plaintiff is entirely dependent upon the testimony of the first set of witnesses. And the sisters who were wives of the witnesses in the second set were moribund. Lest you say that since, presumably, the majority of individuals who are moribund will actually die very soon, and therefore these two witnesses are fit to testify together, therefore, the tanna teaches us that since now in any event, the wives had not yet died, their husbands remain unfit to testify together.

מתני׳ משביע אני עליכם אם לא תבואו ותעידוני שיש לי ביד פלוני פקדון ותשומת יד וגזל ואבידה שבועה שאין אנו יודעין לך עדות אין חייבין אלא אחת

MISHNA: In a case where the plaintiff said to the witnesses: I administer an oath to you concerning your refusal to testify if you do not come and testify on my behalf that I have in the possession of so-and-so a deposit, and an outstanding loan, and a stolen item, and a lost item, and they lied in reply: On our oath we do not know any testimony on your behalf, they are liable for taking only one false oath of testimony.

שבועה שאין אנו יודעין שיש לך ביד פלוני פקדון ותשומת יד וגזל ואבידה חייבין על כל אחת ואחת

But if they lied in reply: On our oath we do not know that you have in the possession of so-and-so a deposit, and an outstanding loan, and a stolen item, and a lost item, they are liable for each and every one of the components of the claim. It is as though they took a separate oath with regard to each of the details of the claim.

משביע אני עליכם אם לא תבואו ותעידו שיש לי ביד פלוני פקדון חטין ושעורין וכוסמין שבועה שאין אנו יודעין לך עדות אין חייבין אלא אחת

In a case where the plaintiff said to the witnesses: I administer an oath to you concerning your refusal to testify if you do not come and testify that I have in the possession of so-and-so a deposit of wheat, and barley, and spelt, and they lied in reply: On our oath we do not know any testimony on your behalf, they are liable for taking only one false oath of testimony.

שבועה שאין אנו יודעין לך עדות שיש לך ביד פלוני חטין ושעורין וכוסמין חייבין על כל אחת ואחת

But if they lied in reply: On our oath we do not know any testimony on your behalf that you have in the possession of so-and-so wheat, and barley, and spelt, they are liable for each and every one of the components of the claim.

משביע אני עליכם אם לא תבואו ותעידוני שיש לי ביד פלוני נזק וחצי נזק תשלומי כפל ותשלומי ארבעה וחמשה ושאנס איש פלוני את בתי ופתה את בתי ושהכני בני ושחבל בי חבירי ושהדליק את גדישי ביוה"כ הרי אלו חייבין:

In a case where the plaintiff said to the witnesses: I administer an oath to you concerning your refusal to testify if you do not come and testify on my behalf that I have in the possession of so-and-so an outstanding payment for damage; or an outstanding payment for half the damage, which the owner pays for damage caused by his innocuous ox goring another animal; or with regard to an outstanding payment of double the principal that a thief must pay the owner of the stolen item; or with regard to an outstanding payment of four or five times the principal that a thief pays when he stole a sheep or an ox, respectively, and then slaughtered or sold it; or in a case where the plaintiff said: I administer an oath to you concerning your refusal to testify if you do not come and testify that so-and-so raped my daughter; or, he seduced my daughter; or, that my son struck me; or, that another injured me; or, that he set my stack of grain on fire on Yom Kippur; if in any of these cases the witnesses took an oath falsely denying any knowledge of the matter on behalf of the plaintiff, these witnesses are liable for taking a false oath of testimony.

גמ׳ איבעיא להו משביע עדי קנס מהו

GEMARA: A dilemma was raised before the Sages: In a case where one administers an oath to witnesses concerning a fine if they do not come and testify that one performed an action that renders him liable to pay a sum fixed by the Torah as penalty for that action, what is the halakha? Is it like any other case of an oath administered to witnesses in monetary matters or not?

אליבא דר' אלעזר בר"ש לא תיבעי לך דאמר יבואו עדים ויעידו

The Gemara refines the dilemma: According to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, do not raise the dilemma, as he says in a case where one performed an action in the presence of witnesses for which he is liable to pay a fine, and before the witnesses testified, he admitted his liability, even though the principle is: One who admits that he is liable to pay a fine is exempt from paying the fine, the witnesses shall come and testify and render the one who performed the action liable to pay the fine. In his opinion, payment of the fine is dependent upon their testimony, and therefore if they lie, they are liable for taking a false oath of testimony.

כי תיבעי לך אליבא דרבנן דאמרי מודה בקנס ואחר כך באו עדים פטור

When should you raise the dilemma? Raise it according to the opinion of the Rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, as they say: One who admits he is liable to pay a fine is exempt, even if afterward witnesses came and testified to his liability. The case in the mishna is one where the plaintiff demanded that the witnesses testify on his behalf before the defendant admitted knowledge of the fine.

ורבנן דהתם כמאן סבירא להו אילימא כר' אלעזר בר"ש דהכא הא קאמר דבר הגורם לממון כממון דמי

The Gemara seeks to clarify: And the Rabbis, who expressed their opinion there that one who admits he is liable to pay a fine is exempt, even if afterward witnesses come, in accordance with whose opinion do they hold? If we say that they hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, cited here (32a), doesn’t he say: A matter that causes financial loss is considered to have monetary value with regard to the oath of testimony? Witnesses who testify concerning a fine also cause financial loss, as, if the individual does not admit his liability, he will be liable to pay the fine based on their testimony.

אלא כרבנן דהכא דאמרי דבר הגורם לממון לאו כממון דמי מאי כיון דאילו מודה מיפטר לאו ממונא קא כפר ליה או דלמא השתא מיהא לא אודי

Rather, apparently, the Rabbis there hold in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis here, who say: A matter that causes financial loss is not considered to have monetary value. It is according to that opinion that the dilemma is raised: What is the halakha in the case of witnesses to a fine? Does one say: Since if the one liable to pay the fine admits his liability, he is exempt from paying the fine, the witness taking the oath denying knowledge of the matter is not denying a monetary claim, and therefore, he is not liable for taking a false oath of testimony? Or perhaps since now, in any event, he has not yet admitted liability, payment of the fine is dependent upon the testimony of these witnesses and it is considered a monetary matter for which they are liable for taking a false oath of testimony.

תא שמע משביע אני עליכם אם לא תבואו ותעידוני שיש לי ביד פלוני נזק וחצי נזק והא חצי נזק קנסא הוא כמ"ד פלגא נזקא ממונא

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof from the mishna to resolve the dilemma: I administer an oath to you concerning your refusal to testify if you do not come and testify on my behalf that I have in the possession of so-and-so an unpaid payment for damage; and likewise, an unpaid payment for half the damage. In those cases the witnesses can be held liable for the oath of testimony. But isn’t payment for half the damage payment of a fine? The Gemara rejects this proof: This mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the one who says that payment of half the damage is monetary restitution and not a fine.

הניחא למ"ד פלגא נזקא ממונא אלא למ"ד קנסא מאי איכא למימר בחצי נזק צרורות דהלכתא גמירי לה דממונא הוא

The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who says that payment of half the damage is monetary restitution. But according to the one who says that payment of half the damage is payment of a fine, what can be said? The Gemara answers: In his opinion, the mishna is referring to a case where the plaintiff demands that the witnesses testify with regard to liability to pay for half the damage caused by pebbles inadvertently propelled by the foot of a walking animal, as they learned this halakha through tradition transmitted to Moses from Sinai that payment of half the damage in that case is monetary restitution, not a fine. Therefore, no proof may be cited from the mishna with regard to liability for taking a false oath of testimony concerning a fine.

ת"ש תשלומי כפל משום קרנא

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof from the mishna to resolve the dilemma: I administer an oath to you concerning your refusal to testify if you do not come and testify that I have in the possession of so-and-so an unpaid payment of double the principal, for which the witnesses are also liable for taking a false oath of testimony. But isn’t that payment of a fine? The Gemara responds: The liability for taking a false oath of testimony in that case is not due to their denial of knowledge of the matter with regard to the fine; rather, the liability is due to their denial of knowledge of the matter with regard to the principal, which is a full-fledged monetary payment.

ותשלומי ד' וה' משום קרנא

The Gemara cites another proof from the mishna: I administer an oath to you concerning your refusal to testify if you do not come and testify that I have in the possession of so-and-so payment of four or five times the principal, which is a fine. The Gemara answers: There too, the liability is due to their denial of knowledge of the matter with regard to the principal, not due to the fine.

שאנס איש פלוני ופתה את בתי משום בושת ופגם

The Gemara cites another proof from the continuation of the mishna: I administer an oath to you concerning your refusal to testify if you do not come and testify that so-and-so raped my daughter; or, he seduced my daughter. Isn’t the payment for rape and seduction a fine of 50 sela? The Gemara rejects this: There, the liability of the witnesses is due to their denial of knowledge of the matter with regard to payment for humiliation and compensation for degradation of the value of the young woman resulting from the rape or the seduction. Those are categorized as monetary restitution, not as fines.

מאי קמ"ל כולה ממונא הוא רישא חדא קמ"ל סיפא חדא קמ"ל רישא חדא קמ"ל דחצי נזק צרורות ממונא הוא

The Gemara asks: According to this understanding, what is the tanna teaching us with the multiplicity of cases in the mishna? All the cases in the mishna are of monetary restitution. The Gemara answers: In the first clause, the tanna teaches us one novel element, and in the latter clause, the tanna teaches us one novel element. In the first clause, the tanna teaches us one novel element, that liability to pay for half the damage caused by pebbles is monetary restitution, not a fine.

סיפא חדא קמ"ל ושהדליק את גדישי ביוה"כ לאפוקי מאי לאפוקי מדר' נחוניא בן הקנה דתניא ר' נחוניא בן הקנה היה עושה יוה"כ כשבת לתשלומין מה שבת כו'

In the latter clause, the tanna teaches us one novel element: I administer an oath to you concerning your refusal to testify if you do not come and testify that he set my stack of grain on fire on Yom Kippur. What does this halakha serve to exclude? It serves to exclude the opinion of Rabbi Neḥunya ben HaKana, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Neḥunya ben HaKana would deem Yom Kippur like Shabbat with regard to payment of damages. Just as in the case of one who intentionally desecrates Shabbat, he is liable to receive the death penalty and is therefore exempt from liability for payment for damage that is caused while desecrating Shabbat, so too, in the case of one who intentionally desecrates Yom Kippur, he is liable to receive the death penalty and is therefore exempt from liability for payment for damage that is caused while desecrating Yom Kippur. The tanna of the mishna disagrees.

ת"ש משביע אני עליכם אם לא תבואו ותעידוני

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof from a baraita to resolve the dilemma: I administer an oath to you concerning your refusal to testify if you do not come and testify on my behalf