Texts
Topics
Community
Donate
Log in
Sign up
Site Language
עברית
English
Laws of Oaths over Testimony
Laws of Optional Restrictions
Sources
A
MISHNA:
Liability to bring a sliding-scale offering for taking a false
oath of testimony, how so?
In a case where the plaintiff
said to two
individuals:
Come and testify
on
my
behalf, and they replied: On our
oath we do not know any testimony on your
behalf, i.e., we do not have any knowledge of the matter you speak of,
or
in a case where
they said to him: We do not know
any
testimony on your
behalf, and he said to them:
I administer an oath to you, and they said: Amen…
Shevuot 31b:11-15
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…
Shevuot 33a:15-33b:6
MISHNA:
If one said to witnesses:
I administer an oath to you
concerning your refusal to testify
if you do not come and testify on my behalf that so-and-so said
he is going
to give me two hundred dinars and he did not give
them to me, and they take false oaths that they have no knowledge of the matter,
they are exempt
from liability to bring an offering for taking a false oath of testimony,
as one is liable
for taking a false oath of testimony
only
in a case involving
a monetary claim like a deposit
in the sense that were the…
Shevuot 35a:2-17
§
Abaye said: And Rav,
who holds one liable for an oath on an utterance even if it cannot be inverted to refer to the future,
concedes
in a case
where one says to another:
On my
oath I know testimony
that is relevant
to you, and it is found
afterward
that he did not know
testimony that was relevant
to him,
that in
that
case
he is exempt
from bringing an offering for an oath on an utterance. The reason is
that it is not in the category of
an oath that could be inverted to the negative oath of:
I do not know testimony
…
Shevuot 25b:10-16
§ The mishna teaches: If
both of
the witnesses
denied
knowledge of the incident
together,
both of them
are liable.
The Gemara asks:
But
isn’t it
impossible
for two events
to coincide precisely?
By necessity, one denial must have preceded the other.
Rav Ḥisda said:
In accordance with
whose
opinion
is this
mishna?
It is
in accordance with the opinion of
Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, who says:
It is
possible
for two events
to coincide precisely.
…
Shevuot 32a:15-33a:7
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…
Shevuot 33a:12
MISHNA:
These are recited in any language,
not specifically Hebrew:
The portion of
the warning and the oath administered by the priest to
a woman suspected by her husband of having been unfaithful [
sota
]; and the declaration of tithes,
which occurs after the third and the sixth years of the seven-year Sabbatical cycle, when one declares that he has given his tithes appropriately;
Shema
; and
the
Amida
prayer; and Grace after Meals…
Sotah 32a:5
The Gemara answers: It is
as we learned
in a mishna (
Sota
32a):
These are recited in any language
and it is not required that they be recited in Hebrew:
The portion of
the warning and the oath administered by the priest to
a woman suspected by her husband of having been unfaithful [
sota
]; the declaration of tithes,
which occurs after the third and the sixth year of the seven-year Sabbatical cycle, when one declares that he has given his tithes appropriately;
the recitation of
Shema
; and
the
Amida
prayer; and Grace after Meals…
Shevuot 39a:12
Rather, Abaye said
that
this
is what the plaintiff
is saying: I administer an oath to you with an oath, I command you with an oath, I bind you with an oath, I chain you with an oath.
The witnesses are liable in all these cases provided that the plaintiff mentions an oath.
Shevuot 35a:25
§
The Sages taught: From where
is it derived
that the verse
with regard to an oath of testimony
is speaking only about
cases involving
a monetary claim? Rabbi Eliezer says:
Multiple instances of the term
“or” are stated here,
with regard to an oath of testimony: “And he hears the voice of an oath and he is a witness or he saw or he knew” (Leviticus 5:1),
and
multiple instances of the term
“or” are stated there,
with regard to an oath on a deposit: “And he deals falsely with his neighbor in a matter of deposit, or of an outstanding loan…
Shevuot 33b:9
It
was stated:
In a case where one
administers an oath to witnesses
who deny knowing information with regard to ownership
of land
and they deny knowledge of the matter,
Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Elazar disagree: One says
that the witnesses are
liable
to bring a sin-offering for a false oath of testimony,
and one says
that they are
exempt.
The Gemara notes:
It may be concluded that
it is
Rabbi Yoḥanan who says
they are
exempt.
This can be inferred
from
the fact
that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: One who denies a monetary
…
Shevuot 37b:10
The Gemara comments:
And
Rav Ami and Shmuel disagree
with regard to
the issue that is the subject of
the dispute
between
these
tanna’im
, as it is taught
in a
baraita
: With regard to
one who administers an oath
to
a single witness
and the witness takes a false oath that he has no awareness of the monetary matter at hand, the witness is
exempt
from bringing a sin-offering;
and Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, deems
the witness
liable
to bring a sin-offering.
Bava Kamma 105b:17
GEMARA:
In relation to the mishna’s statement with regard to the dissolution of a vow of naziriteship due to a new situation, the Gemara cites a statement that
Rabba said: The Rabbis overwhelmed Rabbi Eliezer
until he retracted his ruling
and established
the
halakha
in accordance with their opinion.
To what does this refer?
As we learned
in a mishna in
Nedarim
(64a): They
may broach
dissolution
by
asking about
a new situation,
i.e…
Nazir 32b:3
MISHNA:
The oath of testimony is practiced with regard to men but not with regard to women, with regard to non-relatives
of the litigants
but not with regard to relatives, with regard to
those
fit
to testify
but not with regard to
those
unfit
to testify due to a transgression that they performed.
And
the oath of testimony
is practiced only with regard to
those
fit to testify.
The oath of testimony is practiced both
in the presence of a court and not in the presence of a court…
Shevuot 30a:1-3
The Gemara answers: The limiting clause is necessary
for that which is taught
in a
baraita
: If someone
saw a crowd of people standing, and his witnesses
were
among them, and he said: I
hereby
administer an oath to you, if you know any testimony
relating
to me, that you will come and testify for me,
one
might
have thought that this form of address suffices to single out the witnesses. This would mean that if the witnesses take a false oath that they do not know testimony with regard to the person who addressed them…
Arakhin 18a:3
Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said:
It comes
to exclude one who plays with dice,
whom the Sages disqualified from giving testimony.
But surely one who plays with dice is eligible by Torah law
to give testimony,
and
it is
the Sages
who
disqualified him.
Despite this,
an oath of testimony does not apply to him
by Torah law, even though the prohibition on his testifying is rabbinic.
Yoma 74a:3
§ The mishna teaches that the oath of testimony
is practiced only with regard to
those
fit to testify.
The Gemara asks: This statement serves
to exclude what
person not allowed to testify who was not mentioned explicitly in the mishna?
Rav Pappa said:
It serves
to exclude a king
who, although he is neither a relative nor otherwise disqualified from testifying, does not testify in court.
And Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said:
It serves
to exclude one who plays with dice,
who is disqualified as a witness by rabbinic law…
Shevuot 31a:14-15
When a plaintiff demands that witnesses testify concerning a matter that through their testimony alone will obligate the defendant to pay this plaintiff a financial claim involving moveable property, [the witnesses] denied [knowing] testimony and took an oath to this effect - whether in a court of law or outside of it - they are liable for
sh'vuat haedut
, for they caused the plaintiff a financial loss through their denial.
Similarly, if the plaintiff administered an oath to them and they denied the matter…
Mishneh Torah, Oaths 9-10
Laws of Optional Restrictions
דיני הימנעות רצונית
Types of Oaths and their Specifications
Oaths of Speech and Vain Oaths
Laws of Release from an Oath
Laws of Oaths over Deposits
Laws of Oaths over Testimony
Laws of Oaths in Court
Severity of Oaths and Carefulness about It
Laws of Vows and their Release
Vowing about Eating and Benefit
Intention and Interpretation of Vows
More
Sheets
דפי מקורות
Related Sheets
We use cookies to give you the best experience possible on our site. Click OK to continue using Sefaria.
Learn More
.
OK
אנחנו משתמשים ב"עוגיות" כדי לתת למשתמשים את חוויית השימוש הטובה ביותר.
קראו עוד בנושא
לחצו כאן לאישור