Shevuot 63

עד שישמעו מפי התובע

unless they hear [the adjuration] from the mouth of the plaintiff!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 35a; why, then, does Samuel need to tell us his ruling? It is already taught in a Mishnah!');">¹</span> - 'If he ran after them' he requires [to tel us]: I might have thought that, since he ran after them, it is as if he had said to them,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Come and bear testimony.'');">²</span>

רץ אחריהן איצטריכא ליה סלקא דעתך אמינא כיון דרץ אחריהן כמאן דאמר להו דמי קמ"ל

therefore he teaches us [that it is not so]. But this we have also learnt:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That he must definitely ask them, and running after them is of no avail.');">³</span>

והא נמי תנינא שבועת העדות כיצד אמר לעדים בואו והעידוני שבועה כו' אמר אין לא אמר לא

What is the oath of testimony? He said to witnesses, 'COME AND BEAR TESTIMONY FOR ME', [AND THEY REPLIED,] 'WE SWEAR etc.' , [implying only] if he said, ['Come and bear testimony',] they are liable, but if he did not say it, they are not liable! - 'HE SAID' is not necessarily stressed [by the Mishnah],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And, were it not for Samuel, we might have thought that if he ran after them, they are also liable.');">⁴</span>

אמר לאו דוקא

for if you will not say thus, then, with reference to deposit, where we learnt: What is the oath of deposit? He said to him, 'Give me the deposit that you have of mine',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' infra 36b.');">⁵</span>

דאי לא תימא הכי גבי פקדון דקתני שבועת הפקדון כיצד אמר לו תן לי פקדון שיש לי בידך ה"נ אמר אין לא אמר לא הא (ויקרא ה, כא) וכחש בעמיתו כל דהו

will you also say that if he said, ['Give me the deposit',] he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The bailee.');">⁶</span> is liable, and if he did not say it, he is not liable?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the bailee denied on oath having the deposit, will you say he is not liable, if the depositor did not in the first place ask for it!');">⁷</span>

אלא אמר לאו דוקא הכא נמי לאו דוקא

[That cannot be,] for [the verse] and deal falsely with his neighbour<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. V, 21.');">⁸</span> [implies] in however slight a degree.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As long as he deals falsely (i.e., denies the deposit) , he is liable.');">⁹</span>

האי מאי אי אמרת בשלמא אמר דהכא דוקא תנא התם אטו הכא אלא אי אמרת לא אמר דהתם דוקא ולא אמר דהכא דוקא אמר אמר למה לי למיתנייה

Hence, 'HE SAID' is not stressed [in that mishnah], and here also it is not stressed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' We would therefore have thought that if he ran after the witnesses (even if he did not say, 'Come and bear testimony') , they are liable; therefore Samuel must teach us that they are not.');">¹⁰</span> What is this!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is no argument.');">¹¹</span>

דלמא אורחא דמילתא קא משמע לן

Granted, if you say that 'HE SAID' here [in our Mishnah] is stressed, he states it there<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In connection with deposit, though it is not intended to be taken literally there.');">¹²</span> because of here;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In our Mishnah it has to be stated, and is intended to be taken literally.');">¹³</span>

תניא כוותיה דשמואל ראוהו שבא אחריהן אמרו לו מה אתה בא אחרינו שבועה שאין אנו יודעין לך עדות פטורין ואם בפקדון חייבים:

but if you say, neither 'HE SAID' there is stressed nor 'HE SAID' here is stressed, why does the Mishnah say 'HE SAID' in both places?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Let them both be omitted. Obviously therefore we must say that at least in our Mishnah 'HE SAID' is to be taken literally; why, therefore, does Samuel need to tell us his ruling? It is implicit in the Mishnah!');">¹⁴</span> - Perhaps because it is the usual thing,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' We might have thought that the Mishnah mentions 'HE SAID', not because it is to be taken literally, but because it is usual for the plaintiff to say, 'Come and bear testimony for me.'');">¹⁵</span>

השביע עליהן חמשה פעמים כו':

therefore he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Samuel.');">¹⁶</span> teaches us [that it is to be taken literally].

מנלן דאכפירה בב"ד הוא דמחייבי אחוץ לב"ד לא מחייבי

It was taught in agreement with Samuel: If they saw him coming after them, and said to him: 'Why are you coming after us? We swear we know no testimony for you', they are exempt; but in the case of a deposit, they are liable.

אמר אביי אמר קרא (ויקרא ה, א) אם לא יגיד ונשא עונו לא אמרתי לך אלא במקום שאילו מגיד זה מתחייב זה ממון

IF HE ADJURED THEM FIVE TIMES, etc. How do we know that for denial in the Beth Din they are liable, but outside the Beth Din they are not liable? - Abaye said: Scripture says, If he tell it not, he shall bear his iniquity;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. V, 1.');">¹⁷</span> I do not say to you [that he bears his iniquity]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For denying knowledge of testimony.');">¹⁸</span>

א"ל רב פפא לאביי אי הכי אימא שבועה גופא בב"ד אין ושלא בבית דין לא

except in the place where, if he would tell [his evidence], the other would be liable to pay money.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The emphasis is on 'tell', 'declare', i.e., before the Beth Din.');">¹⁹</span> Said R'Papa to Abaye: If so, say the oath itself, if [uttered] before the Beth Din, makes him liable, if not before the Beth Din, does not! - That cannot enter our minds, for we learnt: [Scripture says: when he shall be guilty] in one [of these things]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. V, 5.');">²⁰</span>

לא ס"ד דתניא (ויקרא ה, ה) לאחת לחייב על כל אחת ואחת ואי ס"ד בב"ד מי מחייב על כל אחת ואחת והתנן השביע עליהן חמשה פעמים בפני ב"ד וכפרו אין חייבין אלא אחת אמר ר' שמעון מה טעם הואיל ואינם יכולין לחזור ולהודות אלא לאו שמע מינה שבועה חוץ לב"ד כפירה בב"ד:

- to make him liable for each one; and if it enters your mind [to say it must be uttered] before the Beth Din, is he then liable for each one? Surely we learnt: IF HE ADJURED THEM FIVE TIMES BEFORE THE BETH DIN, AND THEY DENIED IT, THEY ARE LIABLE ONLY ONCE.

כפרו שניהן כאחת חייבין: הא אי אפשר לצמצם

SAID R'SIMEON: WHAT IS THE REASON? BECAUSE THEY CANNOT AFTERWARDS ADMIT IT.

אמר רב חסדא הא מני ר' יוסי הגלילי היא דאמר אפשר לצמצם

Hence, we deduce from this, the oath [must be uttered] outside the Beth Din, and denial [must be] before the Beth Din. IF THEY BOTH DENIED IT TOGETHER, THEY ARE BOTH LIABLE.

רבי יוחנן אמר אפילו תימא רבנן כגון שכפרו שניהן בתוך כדי דיבור ותוך כדי דיבור כדיבור דמי

But it is impossible to ascertain simultaneity!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How can we know if both witnesses denied it actually simultaneously?');">²¹</span> - R'Hisda said: This is in accordance with the view of R'Jose the Galilean, who says it is possible to ascertain simultaneity.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Bek. 9a.');">²²</span>

א"ל רב אחא מדיפתי לרבינא מכדי תוך כדי דיבור כמה הוי כדי שאילת תלמיד לרב (איכא דאמרי כדי שאילת הרב לתלמיד) עד דאמרי שבועה שאין אנו יודעין לך עדות טובא הוי א"ל כל אחד ואחד תוך דיבורו של חבירו:

R'Johanan said: You may even say it is in accordance with the view of the Rabbis,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who disagree (loc. cit.) with R. Jose.');">²³</span> [and the Mishnah means,] for example, they both denied it within the time of an utterance;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is explained below as the time required for the greeting: 'Peace be upon thee, my Master!'');">²⁴</span>

בזה אחר זה הראשון חייב והשני פטור: מתני' דלא כי האי תנא דתניא משביע עד אחד פטור ורבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון מחייב

and [two statements following each other] within an interval of the time of an utterance are considered one utterance. Said R'Aha of Difti<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Dibtha on the Tigris, v. Die Landschaft Babylonien Obermeyer, J. p. 197.]');">²⁵</span>

לימא בהא קמיפלגי דמר סבר עד אחד כי אתא לשבועה הוא דקא אתא ומר סבר עד אחד כי אתא לממונא קא אתא

to Rabina: Well, now, within the time of an utterance - what is its duration? As the greeting of a disciple to his Master (some say, as the greeting of a Master to his disciple) ;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Peace be upon thee.'');">²⁶</span>

ותיסברא האמר אביי הכל מודים בעד סוטה והכל מודים בעדי סוטה ומחלוקת בעדי סוטה הכל מודים בעד אחד והכל מודים בעד שכנגדו חשוד על השבועה

now, till they say, 'We swear, we know no testimony for you', the duration is longer!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' These words cannot be said in the time that a greeting can be uttered, for the greeting (in Hebrew) is three words, whereas the oath (in Hebrew) is six words.');">²⁷</span> - He said to him: Each one within the interval of utterance of his neighbour.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The interval elapsing between the denials of the two witnesses must not be longer than the time taken to utter the greeting.');">²⁸</span>

אלא דכ"ע עד אחד כי אתי לשבועה קא אתי והכא בהא קמיפלגי מר סבר דבר הגורם לממון כממון דמי ומ"ס לאו כממון דמי

ONE AFTER ANOTHER, THE FIRST IS LIABLE, AND THE SECOND EXEMPT. Our Mishnah will not be in accordance with the view of this Tanna, for we learnt: If he adjures one witness,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And he denies knowledge of testimony, he is exempt from bringing the offering.');">²⁹</span>

גופא אמר אביי הכל מודים בעד סוטה והכל מודים בעדי סוטה ומחלוקת בעדי סוטה הכל מודים בעד אחד והכל מודים בעד שכנגדו חשוד על השבועה

he is exempt; but R'Eleazar son of R'Simeon makes him liable. Shall we say that they disagree in this: One<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first Tanna holds that one witness is not sufficient to make the defendant liable to pay what the plaintiff demands, but can only make him take an oath denying liability (v. infra 40a) , and therefore, his testimony being ineffective, the witness, if he denies knowledge of testimony, is not liable to bring an offering.');">³⁰</span>

הכל מודים בעד סוטה שחייב בעד טומאה דרחמנא הימניה דכתיב (במדבר ה, יג) ועד אין בה כל שיש בה

holds that one witness, when he comes [to bear testimony], comes [to make the defendant liable] for an oath; and the other<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Eleazar b. R. Simeon.');">³¹</span> holds that one witness, when he comes [to bear testimony], comes [to make him liable to pay] money?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though Scripture says: One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin (Deut. XIX, 15) , R. Eleazar holds it refers only to stripes or other punishment, but one witness is sufficient in money matters; therefore, if one witness denies knowledge of testimony, he is liable. Our Mishnah, in exempting the second witness, is therefore not in accordance with the view of R. Eleazar b. R. Simeon.');">³²</span>

והכל מודים בעדי סוטה שפטור בעדי קינוי דהוה גורם דגורם

- Can you really think so?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That R. Eleazar b. R. Simeon holds one witness is sufficient in money matters?');">³³</span> Surely Abaye said: All agree in [the case of] the witness of the sotah and all agree in [the case of] the witnesses of the sotah; and they disagree in [the case of] the witnesses of t sotah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Wife suspected by husband of unfaithfulness, Num. V, 11-31; all agree that in certain circumstances even if one witness of the sotah is adjured and denies knowledge he is liable; and in certain circumstances even if two witnesses are adjured and deny knowledge they are exempt; and in certain circumstances if two witnesses are adjured, R. Eleazar b. R. Simeon and the Sages disagree, the former holding they are liable, and the latter that they are exempt. The circumstances are explained below.');">³⁴</span> All agree in [the case of] one witness;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That in certain circumstances (such as those at which R. Abba was present; infra 32b) he is liable, if be denies on oath knowledge of testimony.');">³⁵</span> and all agree in [the case of] the witness where his<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The reference will be explained infra.');">³⁶</span> adversary is suspected of swearing falsely!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That he is liable (v. infra ');">³⁷</span> - Well then, all agree that one witness, when he comes [to bear testimony], comes [to make the defendant liable] for an oath; and here, they disagree in this: one<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Eleazar b. R. Simeon, in saying that if one witness is adjured he is liable, though if he had given evidence, he would have made the defendant liable for an oath only.');">³⁸</span> holds that which causes [extraction of] money is counted as [if it had actually extracted] money;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This witness, though not actually extracting money, causes extraction of money, because the defendant, rather than take an oath, pays the claim. hube hsg');">³⁹</span> and the other holds it is not counted as [if it had actually extracted] money. [To revert to] the text above: 'Abaye said: All agree in [the case of] the witness of the sotah; and all agr [the case of] the witnesses of the sotah, and they disagree in [the case of] the witnesses of the sotah. All agr in [the case of] one witness, and all agree in [the case of] the witness where his adversary is suspected of swearing falsely.' 'All agree in [the case of] the witness of the sotah that he is liable' - the witness of defilement,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' First there must be two witnesses before whom the husband warns his wife, 'Do not go with So-and-so secretly' ( , witnesses of his vrh,x hsg jealousy) ; and two witnesses that she did go secretly with him ( , witnesses of the secret meeting) . If now there is one witness that vtnuy hsg she actually was unfaithful at this secret meeting ( , witness of defilement) , the witness is believed, and the husband need not pay his vcu,f wife her (marriage settlement) . If this witness of defilement avoids giving testimony by swearing falsely that he knows no testimony, he is liable to bring an offering, for he has, by his avoidance of evidence, occasioned a pecuniary loss to the husband (who has to pay his wife the kethubah) . sg sg sjt');">⁴⁰</span> for Scripture believes him, as it is written: and there be no witness against her<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. V. 13; though Scripture says, there is no (singular) , it is explained (Sotah 31b) that (without the qualifying numeral) denotes two witnesses; hence, Scripture means, 'there be not two witnesses', but only one.');">⁴¹</span> - as long as there is [some testimony] against her.' And all agree in [the case of] the witnesses of the sotah that they are exempt' - the witnesses of jealousy, for they are the cause of a cause.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even if they had given evidence, there is still the need of the other two witnesses that the wife had secreted herself with her paramour; and even these latter do not actually benefit the husband directly (by freeing him from paying the kethubah) , but indirectly, for by their evidence they cause the wife to drink the 'bitter waters' (Lev. V. 17-24) , and possibly, out of fear, she might confess her unfaithfulness, and lose her kethubah. vrh,x hsg hube hsg Hence, the are merely the cause of pecuniary loss, and the the cause of the cause, i.e., remote and very indirect cause. If, hube hsg therefore, the avoided giving evidence by swearing falsely, they are not liable, for they did not directly cause any pecuniary loss.');">⁴²</span>