Commentary for Shevuot 74:1

הא קיימא שניה

The second set are still available!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the claim can be upheld by them. Since we say, however, that the first set are also liable (though their denial has not harmed the claimant) , we may deduce that a denial of money for which there are witnesses (in this case, the second set) , though it is ineffective, is still deemed a denial; and the transgressor is liable. This is opposed to Rabbah's view.');">¹</span> - Rabina said: Here we are discussing [a case] where the second set, at the time of the denial of the first set, were related through their wives, and their wives were dying; you might have thought that [because we say] the majority of dying people actually die [the second set are reckoned eligible witnesses];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the first set should therefore be exempt, because there are other witnesses; v. supra 33a.');">²</span>

Explore commentary for Shevuot 74:1. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.