Commentary for Shevuot 68:25

ותהדר עדות ותגמר לה מפקדון מזיד דלאו כשוגג מה פקדון שוגג אין מזיד לא אף עדות שוגג אין מזיד לא כי היכי דיליף פקדון ממעילה

claim and denial,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The transgression is the result of claim and denial.');">³⁰</span> and 'or. or'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In both, 'or . . or' occurs, which is not the case in trespass, v. supra p. 191.');">³¹</span> - The others are more.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deposit is like trespass in more respects than it is like testimony, six instead of five.');">³²</span> Well then, why the laughter?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For it is really more reasonable to deduce deposit from trespass, and therefore to exempt wilful transgression from an offering.');">³³</span> - When R'Papa and R'Huna the son of R'Joshua came from the Academy,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Be-rab; v. Sanh. (Sonc. ed.) p. 387, n. 7. vua vrzd tyj, tyj,');">³⁴</span> they said this is the reason for the laughter: Behold R'Simeon deduces by analogy [testimony from deposit].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 34a; by the of that just as deposit deals only with money claims so testimony deals only with money claims. vua vrzd vua vrzd');">³⁵</span> Why then does he argue: 'Deposit [is restricted to money claims] because the law does not make him who is adjured [by others] like him who swears [of his own accord], nor him who swears wilfully like him who swears unwittingly.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since he uses the to deduce testimony from deposit, let him use the same to deduce deposit from testimony for liability in the case of adjuration by others, and for wilful as for unwitting transgression.');">³⁶</span> But why the laughter? Perhaps he argued thus before he established the analogy, but after he established the analogy he does not argue thus.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But agrees that deposit may be deduced from testimony to make him liable in the case of adjuration by others, and for wilful transgression. vua vrzd');">³⁷</span> But does he not? Surely Raba B'Ithi said to the Sages: Who is the Tanna who holds that [in the case of] the oath of deposit wilful transgression is not atoned for [by an offering]? It is R'Simeon!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence R. Simeon does not use the to deduce deposit from testimony; and that was the cause of the laughter. vua vrzd tyj, tyj,');">³⁸</span> - Perhaps he argues that wilful transgression [is not] like unwitting [in the case of deposit], because he deduces it from trespass<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even after he has established the of (testimony from deposit) . vua vrzd');">³⁹</span> since [it is equal to it] in more respects; but that adjuration by others [is not] like swearing of his own accord he does not argue.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After having established the , but deduces deposit from testimony that adjuration by others makes him liable. There is therefore no cause for laughter, for he likens deposit to trespass to exempt wilful transgression from an offering (for deposit is like trespass in more vua vrzd respects than it is like testimony) ; and he likens deposit to testimony (because he has a) to make him liable in the case of adjuration by others. (He cannot liken it to trespass in this respect, for there is no oath involved.) vua vrzd');">⁴⁰</span> - Well, let testimony now be in turn deduced from deposit that wilful is not like unwitting transgression; just as [in the case of] deposit he is liable for unwitting but not for wilful transgression, so [in the case of] testimony him be liable for unwitting and not for wilful transgression; just as he deduces deposit from trespass!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since he has already deduced deposit from trespass that he is not liable for wilful transgression, and since he has a to equate testimony with deposit, let him say that in the case of testimony also he is not liable for wilful transgression; why does he say that in testimony wilful is like unwitting transgression? Hence the laughter.');">⁴¹</span> -

Explore commentary for Shevuot 68:25. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.