Shevuot 65

הא קיימא שניה

The second set are still there!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To bear testimony; and the first have therefore not occasioned him any loss by withholding their evidence.');">¹</span> - Rabina said: Here we are discussing [a case] where, for example, the second set, at the time of the denial of the first set, were related through their wives;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' They married two sisters, and therefore were ineligible to bear testimony together in one case.');">²</span>

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):

and their wives were dying: you might have thought [because we say] the majority of dying people actually die [the second set are eligible],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because we assume the wives are counted as dead, therefore the witnesses are no longer related to each other; and since they are now eligible, the first set should be exempt, because the second set are there to give evidence.');">³</span> therefore he teaches us [that they are not], because as yet the wives are not dead.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first set are therefore liable, because they alone are eligible, and by withholding their testimony they make the claimant incur a loss.');">⁴</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> 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

<big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>'I ADJURE YOU THAT YOU COME AND BEAR TESTIMONY FOR ME THAT THERE ARE OF MINE IN THE POSSESSION OF SO-AND-SO A DEPOSIT, LOAN, THEFT, AND LOST OBJECT.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'I deposited with him some wheat, and be borrowed from me some wheat, and stole from me some wheat, and found some wheat which I had lost'.');">⁵</span> - 'WE SWEAR WE KNOW NO TESTIMONY FOR YOU': THEY ARE LIABLE ONLY ONCE.'

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

WE SWEAR WE KNOW NOT THAT THERE ARE OF YOURS IN THE POSSESSION OF SO-AND-SO A DEPOSIT, LOAN, THEFT, AND LOST OBJECT': THEY ARE LIABLE FOR EACH ONE.' I ADJURE YOU THAT YOU BEAR TESTIMONY FOR ME THAT THERE IS OF MINE IN THE POSSESSION OF SO-AND-SO A DEPOSIT OF WHEAT, BARLEY, AND SPELT'.

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

- 'WE SWEAR WE KNOW NO TESTIMONY FOR YOU': THEY ARE LIABLE ONLY ONCE.' WE SWEAR WE KNOW NO TESTIMONY FOR YOU THAT THERE IS OF YOURS IN THE POSSESSION OF SO-AND-SO A DEPOSIT OF WHEAT, BARLEY, AND SPELT': THEY ARE LIABLE FOR EACH ONE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In this clause the claim is under one head (deposit) , but of different kinds (wheat, barley, and spelt) . In the first clause the claim is under different heads (deposit, loan, theft, lost object) , but one kind (e.g., wheat) .');">⁶</span>

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

- 'I ADJURE YOU THAT YOU COME AND BEAR TESTIMONY FOR ME THAT SO-AND-SO OWES ME FULL INDEMNITY FOR DAMAGE, OR HALF INDEMNITY,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Explained in the GEMARA:');">⁷</span> OR DOUBLE,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For theft; Ex. XXII, 3.');">⁸</span>

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:

OR FOUR OR FIVE TIMES THE AMOUNT;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the thief sold or killed the animal he stole, he pays four times its value (for a sheep) , and five times its value (for an ox) ; Ex. XXI, 37. ,auc odp');">⁹</span> OR THAT SO-AND-SO VIOLATED MY DAUGHTER, OR SEDUCED MY DAUGHTER;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He must pay the father for the shame caused to his daughter () , and for the deterioration in her value () .');">¹⁰</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> איבעיא להו משביע עדי קנס מהו

OR THAT MY SON SMOTE ME;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Without causing a wound, he must pay for the shame. If he caused a wound, the penalty is death (Sanh. 85b) , and the lesser penalty ,auc');">¹¹</span> OR THAT MY NEIGHBOUR INJURED ME, OR SET FIRE TO MY HAYSTACK ON THE DAY OF ATONEMENT';<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though the penalty for wounding or setting fire on the Day of Atonement is kareth, the money penalty is also inflicted.');">¹²</span>

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

[AND THEY DENY KNOWLEDGE OF TESTIMONY] THEY ARE LIABLE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For they thereby deprive the claimant of his money. xbe iunn');">¹³</span> <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>It was debated: If he adjures witnesses in [a case where] a fine [is imposed],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., for seducing a maid, for which he pays 50 shekels; Deut. XXII, 29. This is a fine () in contradistinction to a real liability () . Any payment that does not correspond to the amount of damage caused is considered a fine.');">¹⁴</span>

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

what is the ruling? In accordance with the view of R'Eleazar son of R'Simeon who says, let the witnesses come and hear testimony, there is no question;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He who admits an act for which a fine is imposed is exempt (B.K. 64b) ; but if after his confession witnesses give evidence, he is liable, according to R. Eleazar b. R. Simeon. If, therefore, the witnesses withhold their testimony, they cause a pecuniary loss to the injured party, and are therefore liable.');">¹⁵</span>

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

but the question is in accordance with the view of the Rabbis who say, he who admits [an act for which] a fine [is imposed], and then witnesses come, is exempt.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Do we say this is not a real liability, since a confession would exempt him, and therefore if witnesses are adjured to bear testimony before he confesses, and deny knowledge of testimony, they are exempt; or, since, if they had given evidence before his confession, he would have been liable, they are, by withholding evidence, causing a loss to the claimant, and consequently should be liable?');">¹⁶</span> But [consider] the Rabbis there,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who hold that even if witnesses come after his confession he is still exempt.');">¹⁷</span>

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

with whom do they agree? Shall we say they agree with R'Eleazar son of R'Simeon here?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 32a; if one witness is adjured, and denies knowledge, he is liable.');">¹⁸</span>

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

Surely he says, that which causes [extraction of] money is counted as [if it had extracted] money!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Therefore, even if we say that confession of a fine, followed by witnesses, still exempts him; the witnesses, who are adjured before the confession, should be liable, because, by withholding their evidence, they cause loss to the claimant.');">¹⁹</span> - Well then, they agree with the Rabbis here<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 32a.');">²⁰</span>

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

who say that which causes [extraction of] money is not counted as [if it had extracted] money: what is the ruling? [Shall we say] since, if he had confessed, he would have been exempt,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even if witnesses had come later.');">²¹</span>

ת"ש תשלומי כפל משום קרנא

he is not denying [a legitimate] money [liability],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore the witnesses, who are adjured before he confesses, are not liable, though by withholding testimony they cause a loss to the iunnk orud claimant, for that is merely .');">²²</span> or, since now he did not actually confess, [he is denying a money liability]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the witnesses who are adjured are depriving the claimant of money by withholding their testimony, and are therefore liable.');">²³</span>

ותשלומי ד' וה' משום קרנא

- Come and hear: 'I ADJURE YOU THAT YOU COME AND BEAR TESTIMONY FOR ME THAT SO-AND-SO OWES ME FULL INDEMNITY FOR DAMAGE, OR HALF INDEMNITY'. Now, half indemnity is a fine,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is assumed at present that this half indemnity is for the damage caused by a goring ox on the first two occasions while yet a Tam (v. Glos.) , Ex. XXI, 35; and this is a fine, B.K. 15a.');">²⁴</span>

שאנס איש פלוני ופתה את בתי משום בושת ופגם

[and yet they are liable]!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence you may deduce that if witnesses for a fine are adjured, they are liable.');">²⁵</span> - [The Mishnah will agree with him] who holds the half indemnity is a liability.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' B.K. 15a; hence you cannot solve the problem from the MISHNAH:');">²⁶</span>

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

That is well according to him who holds that the half indemnity is a liability, but according to him who holds it is a fine, what shall we say?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How will he explain the half indemnity of the Mishnah?');">²⁷</span> - [The Mishnah will refer to] the half indemnity of pebbles,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If an animal, while walking, treads on pebbles, and they fly out from under its feet, and cause damage to another's property, the owner of the animal pays half the amount of the damage; B.K. 17a.');">²⁸</span>

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'

for which there is a tradition that it is a liability. Come and hear: '[SO-AND-SO OWES ME] DOUBLE'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For theft; the extra amount above the principal is a fine. The witnesses are liable; hence you may solve your problem.');">²⁹</span>

ת"ש משביע אני עליכם אם לא תבואו ותעידוני

- Because of the principal.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The witnesses are liable because by withholding evidence they deprive him even of the principal.');">³⁰</span> 'FOUR OR FIVE TIMES THE AMOUNT'! - Because of the principal. - 'SO-AND-SO VIOLATED, OR SEDUCED MY DAUGHTER'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For which a fine is imposed; Deut. XXII, 29.');">³¹</span> - Because of the shame and deterioration.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By withholding evidence the witnesses deprive the father of compensation by the seducer (apart from the fine of 50 shekels) for the shame, iunn xbe and also for the deterioration in value of the girl (which sums are , not) . iunn xbe');">³²</span> What does he teach us? It is all liability!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If all the clauses in the Mishnah refer to and not , why does the Mishnah need to enumerate them all? One clause would suffice.');">³³</span> - The first clause teaches us one thing, and the last clause teaches us one thing. The first clause teaches us one thing, that the half indemnity of pebbles is a liability.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And because the Mishnah mentions this, it mentions also the rest (double, four or five times) , for they are equal in that they are either more or less than the principal. ihs ,hc ,,hn');">³⁴</span> The last clause teaches us one thing: 'THAT HE SET FIRE TO MY HAYSTACK ON THE DAY OF ATONEMENT' [etc.]. What does this exclude? It excludes the view of R'Nehunia B'Hakkanah, for it was taught: R'Nehunia B'Hakkanah made the Day of Atonement equivalent to the Sabbath for payment; just as on the Sabbath, etc.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because he incurs the death penalty () for setting a haystack on fire, he does not pay for the damage; so on the Day of Atonement, because he incurs the penalty of kareth, he does not pay; Keth. 30a. Our Mishnah, in stating that the witnesses are liable if they withhold evidence in the case of a man who set fire to a haystack on the Day of Atonement, obviously holds that had they given evidence he would have had to pay, hence it disagrees with R. Nehunia b. Hakkanah. This last clause is therefore inserted to exclude R. Nehunia b. Hakkanah's view.');">³⁵</span> Come and hear: 'I adjure you that you come and bear testimony for me