Shevuot 73

להו הזיד בשבועת הפקדון והתרו בו מהו כיון דחידוש הוא דבכל התורה לא אשכחן מזיד דמייתי קרבן והכא מייתי קרבן לא שנא אתרו ביה ולא שנא לא אתרו ביה או דלמא ה"מ היכא דלא אתרו ביה אבל היכא דאתרו ביה מילקא לקי קרבן לא מייתי או דלמא הא והא עבדינא

to them: If he wilfully transgressed the oath of deposit, and [witnesses] warned him, what is the ruling?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Does he bring an offering; or is he punished by stripes; or both?');">¹</span> Since it presents an anomaly in that in the whole Torah we do not find that a wilful transgressor brings an offering, and here he brings an offering;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Rashi and Tosaf. point out that it is not exactly an anomaly as there are other instances, a Nazirite who wilfully makes himself unclean, where an offering is brought far a wilful transgression, being one of them.]');">²</span> there is therefore no difference whether he is warned or not warned;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And even if warned he brings all offering, but does not suffer stripes.');">³</span> or, it applies only when he is not warned; but when he is warned, he receives stripes, and does not bring an offering; or, do we impose both [punishments] on him? - They said to him: We have it stated [in a Baraitha]: The oath of deposit is more severe than it;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The oath of testimony.');">⁴</span>

א"ל תנינא חמורה הימנה שבועת הפקדון שחייבין על זדונה מכות ועל שגגתה אשם בכסף שקלים מדקאמר ליה על זדונה מכות מכלל דאתרו ביה וקאמר מכות אין קרבן לא

for one is liable for its wilful transgression, stripes,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whereas in the case of oath of testimony there cannot be stripes, because it is not possible to know if the witnesses transgressed wilfully, for they can always say they forgot the testimony; v. Tosaf. a.l.');">⁵</span> and for its unwitting transgression, a guilt offering of [the value of] two silver shekels.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whereas in the case of oath of testimony a sliding scale sacrifice (which may be worth less than 2 shekels) is brought.');">⁶</span> Now, since it says: 'for its wilful transgression, stripes,' we deduce they warned him;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For without warning, stripes are not inflicted.');">⁷</span> and yet it says stripes only and not an offering!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence, R. Kahana's question is solved.');">⁸</span>

ומאי חומרא דניחא ליה לאיניש דמייתי קרבן ולא לילקי

And wherein lies then the greater severity?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of oath of deposit. If for wilful transgression with warning, stripes only are inflicted (and no offering is brought) ; and in the case of oath of testimony an offering is brought, why is the oath of deposit said to be severer than the oath of testimony?');">⁹</span> [In that] a man prefers to bring an offering rather than suffer stripes. Said Raba B'Ithi to them: [No! this affords no solution, for] who is the Tanna [who holds that] wilful transgression of oath of deposit is not atoned for by an offering? It is R'Simeon;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 34b.');">¹⁰</span>

אמר להו רבא בר איתי מאן תנא זדון שבועת הפקדון לא ניתן לכפרה ר"ש אבל לרבנן קרבן נמי מייתי

but according to the Rabbis, he brings an offering also.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Kahana's question cannot be solved from this Baraitha, for it may be voicing the view of R. Simeon; but according to the Sages it is possible that for wilful transgression of oath of deposit, with warning, an offering is also brought.');">¹¹</span> - R'Kahana said to them: Away with this [Baraitha];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' We cannot in any way deduce anything from it; and there is no need to say it is in accordance with R. Simeon's view.');">¹²</span> for I learnt it and thus l learnt it: Both for its wilful and unwitting transgression [the penalty is] a guilt offering of [the value of] two silver shekels. And wherein lies its greater severity?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since in the case of oath of testimony, too, only an offering is brought for both wilful and unwitting transgression.');">¹³</span>

אמר להו רב כהנא בר מינה דההיא דאנא תנינא לה והכי תנינא לה אחד זדונה ואחד שגגתה אשם בכסף שקלים ומאי חומרא דאילו התם חטאת בת דנקא והכא אשם בכסף שקלים

There<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of oath of testimony.');">¹⁴</span> [he may bring] a sin offering of the value of a danka,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Small Persian coin, one sixth of denar.');">¹⁵</span> whereas here [he must bring] a guilt offering of the value of two shekels of silver. Le us then deduce from this!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That he brings an offering, and does not suffer stripes; and thus solve R. Kahana's question.');">¹⁶</span>

וליגמר מינה דלמא דלא אתרו ביה

- Perhaps [it refers to the case where] they did not warn him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Therefore he does not suffer stripes.');">¹⁷</span> Another version.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [MS.M. rightly omits.]');">¹⁸</span> Come and hear: One is not liable for its unwitting transgression.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If he swore falsely really by mistake.');">¹⁹</span> To what is one liable for its wilful transgression?

ל"א ת"ש אין חייבין על שגגתה מה הן חייבין על זדונה אשם בכסף שקלים מאי לאו בדאתרו ביה ה"נ דלא אתרו ביה

A guilt offering of [the value of] two shekels of silver. Now does this not refer to the case where they warned him?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And we may solve R. Kahana's question that even when warned he brings only all offering.');">²⁰</span> - [No!] Here also it may refer to the case where they did not warn him. Come and hear: No! If you say in the case of a nazirite who had become unclean [that such and such is the case],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The actual reference is not known (Rashi) , yet this does not affect the argument; but see R. Han. and Tosaf.');">²¹</span>

ת"ש לא אם אמרת בנזיר טמא שכן לוקה תאמר בשבועת הפקדון שאינו לוקה מדקאמר לוקה מכלל דאתרו ביה וקאמר תאמר בשבועת הפקדון שאינו לוקה אבל קרבן מייתי

it is because he receives stripes,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For wilfully making himself unclean; Num. VI, 6 ff. Therefore his case is stricter.');">²²</span> but how can you say in the case of the oath of deposit [that such and such is the case], since its transgressor does not receive stripes? Since it says, 'he receives stripes,' we deduce that they warned him; and it says, 'how can you say in the case of the oath of deposit [that such and such is the case], since its transgressor does not receive stripes? ' - but [presumably] an offering he brings!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence, R. Kahana's question is solved, that the transgressor of the oath of deposit, after warning, does not receive stripes, but brings an offering.');">²³</span> - What is meant by 'he does not receive stripes' is that he is not freed by stripes.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Stripes alone are insufficient; he must bring an offering also.');">²⁴</span>

מאי אינו לוקה דאינו נפטר במלקות מכלל דנזיר טמא נפטר במלקות הא קרבן כתיב ביה התם דמייתי קרבן כי היכי דתיחול עליה נזירות בטהרה

Do we infer then that a nazirite who had become unclean is freed by stripes?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And brings no offering.');">²⁵</span> Surely an offering is [specifically] mentioned with reference to him!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. VI, 12: and he shall bring a lamb of the first year for a guilt offering.');">²⁶</span> - There he brings an offering merely in order that his naziriteship should recommence in cleanliness.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And not as an atonement for sin.');">²⁷</span> The Scholars told this to Rabbah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The scholars mentioned above who studied the tractate of Shebu'oth in the School of Rabbah told Rabbah of R. Kahana's question.');">²⁸</span>

אמרוה רבנן קמיה דרבה אמר להו מכלל דכי לא אתרו ביה ואיכא עדים מיחייב כפירת דברים בעלמא הוא אלמא קסבר רבה הכופר בממון שיש עליו עדים פטור

He said to them: Hence,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because R. Kahana asks only the ruling in the case where he was warned, he is apparently satisfied that, when not warned, he brings an offering, although the witnesses may know that he has the deposit.');">²⁹</span> if they did not warn him, though there are witnesses, he is liable,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An offering.');">³⁰</span> [but surely] it is [like] a merely [useless] denial of words!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For his denial can achieve nothing, since there are witnesses who know he has the deposit.');">³¹</span> This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rabbah's question.');">³²</span>

א"ל רב חנינא לרבה תניא דמסייע לך (ויקרא ה, כב) וכחש בה פרט למודה לאחד מן האחין או לאחד מן השותפין (ויקרא ה, כב) ונשבע על שקר פרט ללוה בשטר וללוה בעדים

shows that Rabbah [himself] holds, he who denies money for which there are witnesses, is exempt.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From an offering.');">³³</span> R'Hanina said to Rabbah: There is [a Baraitha] taught in support of your view: And denieth it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. V, 22.');">³⁴</span> - except if he admits it to one of the brothers or one of the partners;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who has a share in this deposit; when the deposit is claimed by one brother or partner, he admits it, and when it is claimed by another, he denies it; he is not, in such a case, liable to bring an offering for his false oath, because Scripture says: and denieth it, i.e., completely.');">³⁵</span> and sweareth falsely<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. V, 22.');">³⁴</span>

אמר ליה אי משום הא לא תסייען באומר לויתי ולא לויתי בעדים לויתי ולא לויתי בשטר

- except if he borrowed on a bond or borrowed in the presence of witnesses!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since his denial can achieve nothing, he does not bring an offering for his oath. This supports Rabbah.');">³⁶</span> - He said to him: From this you can bring no support to my view. [It refers to a case where] he says, 'I borrowed, but I did not borrow in the presence of witnesses'; 'I borrowed, but I did not borrow on a bond.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He does not deny that he owes the money; he merely denies that there were witnesses or that he gave a bond. Therefore, he does not bring an offering for his oath, because his denial is of no material consequence, but he who denies a money claim though there are witnesses would be liable to an offering.');">³⁷</span> How [do we know it refers to such a case]?

ממאי מדקתני וכחש בה פרט למודה לאחד מן האחין או לאחד מן השותפין האי לאחד מן האחין ה"ד אילימא דאודי ליה בפלגא דידיה הא איכא כפירה דאידך אלא לאו דאמרי ליה מתרוינן יזפת ואמר להו לא מחד מינייכו יזפי דהויא ליה כפירת דברים בעלמא ומדרישא כפירת דברים סיפא נמי כפירת דברים

Because it states: 'and denieth it - except if he admits it to one of the brothers or one of the partners.' [Now 'to one of the brothers' - what does it mean? Shall we say [it means] he admits his half?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The amount owing to the one brother.');">³⁸</span> But there is the denial of the other!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He should be liable to bring an offering for denying the other half on oath.');">³⁹</span>

(סימן חובה כיתות דבעל הבית חומר נזירא) ת"ש אינו חייב על שגגתה ומהו חייב על זדונה אשם בכסף שקלים מאי לאו זדון עדים לא זדון עצמו

Obviously then, it means, they say to him: 'From both of us you borrowed,' and he replies to them: 'No! From one of you I borrowed';<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The whole amount.');">⁴⁰</span> and this is simply a denial of words.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And not of money; therefore he is not liable for an offering.');">⁴¹</span> And since the first clause refers to a denial of words, the second clause also refers to a denial of words. ⁴²

ת"ש היו שתי כתי עדים כפרה הראשונה ואחר כך כפרה השניה שתיהן חייבות מפני שיכולה עדות להתקיים בשתיהן בשלמא שניה תחייב דהא כפרה לה כת ראשונה אלא ראשונה אמאי מיחייבא

"&gt; Come and hear: He is not liable for its unwitting transgression; and to what is he liable for its wilful transgression? A guilt offering of [the value of] two silver shekels. Does it not mean wilful transgression [after warning by] witnesses?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Yet he is liable to bring an offering. This is opposed to Rabbah's view that where there is denial of money for which there are witnesses, he does not bring an offering.');">⁴³</span> - No! [It may mean] wilful transgression on his own account.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And there are no witnesses.');">⁴⁴</span> Come and hear: If there were two sets of witnesses, and the first denied, and then the second denied, they are both liable, because the testimony could be upheld by [either of] the two.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 31b.');">⁴⁵</span> Now granted, the second set should be liable, for the first set have denied;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the claim now depends entirely on the evidence of the second set.');">⁴⁶</span> but the first set - why should they be liable?