Shevuot 68

ועדים רואין אותו מבחוץ מאי

and witnesses had been watching him from outside,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Unknown to the debtor.');">¹</span> what [is the ruling]? - R'Hamnuna said to him: And what does that one<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The debtor.');">²</span>

א"ל רב המנונא והלה מה טוען אי אמר לא היו דברים מעולם הוחזק כפרן אי אמר אין שקלי ודידי שקלי כי אתו עדים מאי הוי א"ל המנונא את עול תא

plead? If he says, 'The thing never occurred', he is proven a liar.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And is not believed on oath, but must pay.');">³</span>

ההוא דא"ל לחבריה מנה מניתי לך בצד עמוד זה א"ל לא עברתי בצד עמוד זה אתו תרי סהדי אסהידו ביה דהשתין מים בצד עמוד זה אמר ר"ל הוחזק כפרן

If he says, 'Yes, I too [the money], but it was my own that I took', if witnesses come, what happens?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The witnesses only saw him count the money, but they do not know if it was a loan, or gift, or the repayment of a loan.');">⁴</span> - He said to him: 'Hamnuna, you come and go in'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To the Academy; i.e., you are fit to teach.');">⁵</span>

מתקיף לה ר"נ האי דינא פרסאה הוא מי קאמר מעולם בעסק זה קא"ל

A certain [man] said to his neighbour.' A hundred zuz I counted out to you by the side of this pillar'.

איכא דאמרי ההוא דא"ל לחבריה מנה מניתי לך בצד עמוד זה א"ל לא עברתי בצד עמוד זה מעולם נפקו ביה סהדי דהשתין מים בצד עמוד זה אמר ר"נ הוחזק כפרן

He replied to him, 'I did not pass by the side of this pillar'. Two witnesses came and bore testimony that he had urinated by the side of that pillar.

א"ל רבא לר"נ כל מילתא דלא רמיא עליה דאיניש עביד לה ולאו אדעתיה:

Said Resh Lakish, he is proven a liar. R'Nahman raised an objection: This is a Persian judgment!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An arbitrary decision.');">⁶</span>

ר"ש אומר חייב כאן וחייב בפקדון כו':

Did he then say 'never'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'I never passed by this pillar'.');">⁷</span> In connection with this affair, he meant.

מחכו עלה במערבא מאי חוכא

Some say: A certain [man] said to his neighbour.' A hundred zuz I counted out to you by the side of this pillar'.

דקתני מה לפקדון שכן לא עשה בו מושבע כנשבע מזיד כשוגג

He replied to him, 'I never passed by the side of this pillar'. Witnesses came that he had urinated by the side of that pillar.

מכדי מושבע מפי עצמו בעדות לר"ש מנא ליה דגמר מפקדון פקדון נמי מושבע מפי אחרים נגמר מעדות

R'Nahman said, he is proven a liar. Said Raba to R'Nahman; Anything which is not imposed upon a man<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An act which is not of sufficient importance to be done with concentration.');">⁸</span>

ומאי חוכא דלמא ר"ש בק"ו מייתי לה מפי אחרים חייב מפי עצמו לא כל שכן

he will do without being conscious of it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Therefore he may really be unaware that he had urinated near the pillar, and should not be presumed a liar.');">⁹</span> R'Simeon said: He is liable here, and he is liable in [the case of] deposit, etc.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 33b.');">¹⁰</span>

אלא חוכא אמזיד כשוגג דקתני מה לפקדון שכן לא עשה בו מושבע כנשבע מזיד כשוגג

They laughed at it in the West.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Phrase generally denoting R. Jose b. Hanninah, v. Sanh. 17b.]');">¹¹</span> Why the laughter? - Because he states; '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.'

מכדי מזיד גבי עדות מנא ליה דלא כתיב ביה ונעלם ה"נ לא כתיב ביה ונעלם

Now, he who swears of his own accord in [the case of] testimony - how does R'Simeon know [that he is liable]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For Scripture implies only adjuration by others; Lev. V, 1.');">¹²</span> Because he deduces it from deposit;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where Scripture implies that only he who swears of his own accord is liable; Lev. V, 21, 22. R. Simeon deduces testimony from deposit by tyj, tyj, analogy of phrases: .');">¹³</span>

אמר להו רב הונא ומאי חוכא דלמא מזיד דלאו כשוגג בפקדון ממעילה ר"ש גמר לה

then let him also in [the case of] deposit deduce adjuration by others from testimony.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By the same analogy. Why then assume that in the case of deposit adjuration by others does not make him liable? This was the cause of the laughter. vua vrzd tyj, tyj,');">¹⁴</span> But why the laughter?

והיינו חוכא אדגמר לה ממעילה נגמר לה מעדות

Perhaps R'Simeon deduces it by argument from minor to major: if when adjured by others he is liable, when he swears of his own accord he should the more so be liable?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He does not deduce testimony from deposit by from ; he argues that in the case of testimony, where Scripture says adjuration by others makes him liable, he should certainly be liable if he swears of his own accord. Since he does not make use of the vua vrzd , he does not use it for deducing deposit from testimony either.');">¹⁵</span> - Well then, the laughter is in connection with 'wilful like unwitting', for he states: '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.'

מסתברא ממעילה הוה ליה למילף שכן מעילה ממעילה

Now for swearing wilfully in [the case of] testimony, how do we know [that he is liable]? Because it is not written, and it be hidden.

אדרבה מעדות הוה ליה למילף שכן תחטא מתחטא

Here<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of deposit.');">¹⁶</span> also it is not written, and it be hidden.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Therefore let us say that for swearing falsely wilfully he is also liable to bring an offering. Because R. Simeon did not say this, they laughed.');">¹⁷</span>

מסתברא ממעילה הוה ליה למילף שכן מעילה בכל נהנה בקבוע חומש ואשם

R'Huna said to them: But why the laughter? Perhaps R'Simeon deduces that wilful [transgression] is not like unwitting in [the case of] deposit from [the law of] trespass [in holy things].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. V, 15: If any one commit a trespass, and sin through error in the holy things. And in the case of deposit Scripture says: If any one sin, vua vrzd kgnw kgn and commit a trespass: Lev. V, 21. We deduce deposit from trespass by the of : as in the case of trespass an offering is brought only for unwitting transgression, so also in the case of deposit.');">¹⁸</span>

אדרבה מעדות ה"ל למילף שכן חטא הדיוט בשבועה תבעיה וכפריה ואואין הנך נפישין

- This then is the very reason for the laughter: why does he deduce it from trespass?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And say that wilful transgression is exempt.');">¹⁹</span> Let him rather deduce it from testimony!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And say that wilful transgression is liable. kgn');">²⁰</span>

אלא מאי חוכא

- It is more reasonable that he should deduce it from trespass, because it is 'trespass' from 'trespass'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In both, the word is used. tyj,');">²¹</span> On the contrary, he should deduce it from testimony, because it is 'sin' from 'sin'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In both, the word is used. kgn');">²²</span>

כי אתא רב פפא ורב הונא בריה דרב יהושע מבי רב אמרי היינו חוכא מכדי ר"ש ג"ש גמיר למה ליה דפריך מה לפקדון שכן לא עשה בו מושבע כנשבע מזיד כשוגג

It is more reasonable that he should deduce it from trespass, because [they are both equal in respect of] 'trespass',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In both, is used.');">²³</span> all,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The witnesses only saw him count the money, but they do not know if it was a loan, or gift, or the repayment of a loan.');">⁴</span>

ומאי חוכא דלמא כי פריך מקמי דתיקום ליה ג"ש בתר דקמא ליה ג"ש לא פריך

enjoyment,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of both deposit and trespass the transgressor derives enjoyment and benefit from his transgression (from the deposit or from the holy things) , but in the case of testimony the witnesses derive no benefit by withholding testimony.');">²⁵</span> fixed offering,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For deposit and trespass a fixed offering is brought, whereas for testimony a sliding scale sacrifice is brought. In the case of the first two also a fifth of the principal is imposed as a fine, and a guilt offering is brought, but not in the case of testimony. Therefore because deposit and trespass are equal in all these respects, we also equate deposit with trespass to exempt wilful transgression from an offering. tyj,');">²⁶</span>

ולא והאמר להו רבא בר איתי לרבנן מאן תנא שבועת הפקדון לא ניתן זדונה לכפרה ר"ש היא

fifth, and guilt offering. On the contrary, he should deduce it from testimony, because [they are both equal in respect of] 'sin',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In both deposit and testimony occurs.');">²⁷</span>

דלמא מזיד כשוגג פריך דגמר לה ממעילה דהנך נפישין אבל מושבע כנשבע לא פריך

layman,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deposit and testimony are both concerned with laymen, but not so trespass in holy things, where the Temple is the claimant.');">²⁸</span> oath,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The transgression in the case of deposit and testimony is in respect of swearing falsely, but not so in the case of trespass.');">²⁹</span>

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> -