Shevuot 74

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>

אמר רבינא הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שהיתה שניה בשעת כפירת הראשונה קרובין בנשותיהן ונשותיהן גוססות מהו דתימא רוב גוססין למיתה קמ"ל השתא מיהת חיי נינהו ולא שכיבי

therefore he teaches us [that they are not, because] as yet the wives are alive and not dead.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the first set are therefore liable.');">³</span> Come and hear: If the trustee<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'owner of a house'. obj rnua');">⁴</span>

תא שמע בעל הבית שטען טענת גנב בפקדון ונשבע והודה ובאו עדים אם עד שלא באו עדים הודה משלם קרן וחומש ואשם אם משבאו עדים הודה משלם תשלומי כפל ואשם

pleaded the plea of theft in the case of a deposit,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That it had been stolen from him; he is not responsible for theft, because he is an unpaid bailee, .');">⁵</span> and swore, then confessed, and witnesses came - if before the witnesses came he confessed, he pays the principal, the fifth, and brings a guilt offering;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. V, 24, 25.');">⁶</span>

הכא נמי כדרבינא

if after the witnesses came he confessed, he pays double,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As if he had been the thief himself, but he pays no fifth; v. B.K. 63b.');">⁷</span> and brings a guilt offering!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though there are witnesses; this is opposed to Rabbah's view.');">⁸</span>

אמר ליה רבינא לרב אשי תא שמע חמורה ממנה שבועת הפקדון שחייבין על זדונה מכות ועל שגגתה אשם בכסף שקלים מדקאמר לוקה מכלל דאיכא עדים וקאמר על שגגתה אשם בכסף שקלים

- Here also, as Rabina said.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' At the time the trustee swore the oath the witnesses were related through their wives, and, therefore, being ineligible, are counted as non-existent; he therefore brings an offering.');">⁹</span> Rabina said to R'Ashi: Come and hear: The oath of deposit is more severe than it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Oath of testimony.');">¹⁰</span>

אמר להו רב מרדכי בר מינה דההיא דהאמר להו רב כהנא אנא תנינא לה והכי תנינא לה אחד זדונה ואחד שגגתה אשם בכסף שקלים

for one is liable for i wilful transgression, stripes, and for its unwitting transgression, a guilt offering of [the value of] two silve shekels. Now, since he says he receives stripes, it follows that there are witnesses; and yet he says, for its unwitting transgression a guilt offering of [the value of] two silver shekels.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence, a guilt offering is brought even when there are witnesses.');">¹¹</span>

תא שמע לא אם אמרת בנזיר טמא שכן לוקה תאמר בשבועת הפקדון שאינו לוקה היכי דמי אי דליכא עדים אמאי לוקה אלא פשיטא דאיכא עדים וקתני תאמר בשבועת הפקדון שאינו לוקה מלקא הוא דלא לקי אבל קרבן מייתי תיובתא דרבה תיובתא

- R'Mordecai said to them:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Read with MS.M.: 'He said to him.']');">¹²</span> Away with this [Baraitha]; for, lo.

רבי יוחנן אמר הכופר בממון שיש עליו עדים חייב בשטר פטור אמר רב פפא מאי טעמיה דרבי יוחנן עדים עבידי דמייתי שטר הא מנח

R'Kahana said to them: I learnt it, and thus I learnt it: Both for its wilf and unwitting transgression [the penalty is] a guilt offering of [the value of] two silver shekels.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since stripes are not mentioned, wilful transgression need not imply the presence of witnesses; so that we cannot, from this Baraitha, refute Rabbah's view.');">¹³</span> Come and hear: No! If you say in the case of a nazirite who had become unclean [that such and such is the case], it is because he receives stripes, but how can you say in the case of an oath of deposit [that such and such is the case] since its transgressor does not receive stripes!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 219.');">¹⁴</span>

אמר ליה רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע לרב פפא שטרא נמי עביד דמרכס אלא אמר רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע היינו טעמיה דרבי יוחנן משום דהוה שטר שעבוד קרקעות ואין מביאין קרבן על כפירת שעבוד קרקעות

- Now, how is this? If there are no witnesses, why does he receive stripes?

איתמר משביע עדי קרקע פליגי רבי יוחנן ור"א חד אמר חייב וחד אמר פטור תסתיים דרבי יוחנן דאמר פטור מדאמר רבי יוחנן הכופר בממון שיש עליו עדים חייב שטר פטור וכדרב הונא בריה דרב יהושע תסתיים

Obviously, therefore, there are witnesses; and yet he states: 'How can you say in the case of an oath of deposit [that such and such is the case] since its transgressor does not receive stripes? ' - stripes he does not receive, but an offering he brings! Verily, a refutation of Rabbah's view!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For Rabbah holds he who denies money where there are witnesses does oat bring an offering for his false oath.');">¹⁵</span> It is a refutation!

א"ל רבי ירמיה לר' אבהו לימא רבי יוחנן ורבי אלעזר בפלוגתא דרבי אליעזר ורבנן קא מיפלגי דתנן הגוזל שדה מחבירו ושטפה נהר חייב להעמיד לו שדה דברי רבי אליעזר וחכ"א אומר לו הרי שלך לפניך

R'Johanan said: He who denies [on oath] money for which there are witnesses, is liable;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An offering.');">¹⁶</span> for which there is a bond, is exempt.

ואמרינן במאי קמיפלגי רבי אליעזר דריש רבויי ומיעוטי ורבנן דרשי כללי ופרטי

R'Papa said: What is R'Johanan's reason? Because witnesses are likely to die,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And since his denial would be effective if they died, he brings a guilt offering for his false oath.');">¹⁷</span>

רבי אליעזר דריש רבויי ומיעוטי (ויקרא ה, כא) וכחש בעמיתו ריבה בפקדון או בתשומת יד מיעט או מכל אשר ישבע חזר וריבה

but the bond remains.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' His denial is therefore always ineffective.');">¹⁸</span> Said R'Huna the son of R'Joshua to R'Papa: But a bond, too, is likely to be lost! - However, said R'Huna the son of R'Joshua: This is R'Johanan's reason: A bond is a hypothecary pledge of lands,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where there is a signed document of indebtedness, the lands of the debtor are security for the debt.');">¹⁹</span>

ריבה ומיעט וריבה ריבה הכל מאי ריבה ריבה כל מילי ומאי מיעט מיעט שטרות

and an offering is not brought for a denial of a hypothecary pledge of lands. It was stated: He who adjures witnesses for land,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To bear testimony for him in a claim for land.');">²⁰</span>

ורבנן דרשי כללי ופרטי וכחש בעמיתו כלל בפקדון או בתשומת יד או בגזל פרט או מכל אשר ישבע עליו חזר וכלל כלל ופרט וכלל אי אתה דן אלא כעין הפרט

- R'Johanan and R'Eleazar disagree: one says they are liable,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To bring a sliding scale sacrifice for denying testimony on oath.');">²¹</span> and the other says they are exempt.

מה הפרט מפורש דבר המטלטל וגופו ממון אף כל דבר המטלטל וגופו ממון יצאו קרקעות שאין מטלטל יצאו עבדים שהוקשו לקרקעות יצאו שטרות שאף על פי שמטלטלין אין גופן ממון

It may be concluded that it is R'Johanan who says they are exempt, for R'Johanan said: He who denies money for which there are witnesses is liable; for which there is a bond, is exempt; and as R'Huna the son of R'Joshua [explained it].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the reason for exemption in the case of a bond is that the lands of the debtor are security for the debt; and no offering is brought for a denial on oath in such a case.');">²²</span> It is conclusive.

מאן דמחייב כרבי אליעזר ומאן דפטר כרבנן

R'Jeremiah said to R'Abbahu: Shall we say that R'Johanan and R'Eleazar disagree on the same principle on which R'Eliezer and the Rabbis [disagree]? For we learnt: He who robs a field from his neighbour and a river flooded it, must restore a field to him: this is the opinion of R'Eliezer; but the Sages say: He may say him, 'Lo, thine own is before thee.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' They hold that land cannot be stolen, i.e., though he dispossesses the owner forcibly, it is still counted as the owner's property.');">²³</span>

אמר ליה לא מאן דמחייב כרבי אליעזר ומאן דפטר אמר לך בהא אפילו רבי אליעזר מודה דרחמנא אמר מכל ולא הכל

And we said: On what do they disagree? R'Eliezer expounds 'amplifications and limitations,' and the Rabbis [Sages] expound 'generalisations and specifications.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For full exposition v. supra 4b; and B.K. (Sonc. ed.) p. 703.');">²⁴</span>

אמר רב פפא משמיה דרבא מתניתין נמי דיקא דקתני גנבת את שורי והוא אומר לא גנבתי משביעך אני ואמר אמן חייב ואילו גנבת את עבדי לא קתני מ"ט לאו משום דעבד איתקש לקרקעות ואין מביאין קרבן על כפירת שעבוד קרקעות

R'Eliezer expounds 'amplifications and limitations': and lie unto his neighbour<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. V, 21.');">²⁵</span> - this amplifies;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e it includes anything about which he may lie.');">²⁶</span>

אמר רב פפי משמיה דרבא אימא סיפא זה הכלל כל המשלם על פי עצמו חייב ושאינו משלם על פי עצמו פטור זה הכלל לאתויי מאי לאו לאתויי גנבת את עבדי

in deposit or loan - this limits; or any thing about which he hath sworn<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. V, 24.');">²⁷</span> - this again amplifies; since it amplifies, limits, and amplifies, it includes all. What does it include? It includes all things: and what does i exclude? It excludes bonds.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which are most dissimilar to the examples ('limitations') given by Scripture: but it does not exclude land. R. Eliezer therefore holds that he who robs a field, which was later flooded, must recompense the owner.');">²⁸</span> And the Rabbis expound 'generalisations and specifications': and lie unto his neighbour - this generalises; in deposit or loan or robbery - this specifies; or any thing about which he hath sworn - this again generalises; since it generalises, specifies, and generalises, you may include only that which is similar to the specification: just as the specification is clearly movable and intrinsically money so everything which is movable and intrinsically money [may be included], but exclude lands,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Rabbis thus hold that land cannot be stolen.');">²⁹</span> which are not movable, and exclude slaves, which have been likened to lands, and exclude bonds, which, though they are movable, are not intrinsically money. - [Now, shall we say that] he who makes them liable agrees with R'Eliezer,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Eleazar, as is concluded above, holds that witnesses who, adjured to bear witness to a land claim, deny testimony on oath, are liable to bring an offering. He will therefore agree with R. Eliezer who holds that land may be stolen and is in the same category as other goods.');">³⁰</span> and he who exempts them agrees with the Rabbis?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Johanan who exempts the witnesses will agree with the Rabbis that land cannot be stolen.');">³¹</span> - He said to him:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Abbahu said to R. Jeremiah.');">³²</span> No! He who makes them liable agrees with R'Eliezer; but he who exempts them, may tell you that in this even R'Eliezer agrees,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though he holds that land is included in the category of things that may be stolen, and must be returned in the state it was at the time of the robbery (or the owner recompensed) , he agrees that there is no liability to bring an offering for a false oath in a land claim, for with reference to oath Scripture says: of all things about which he hath sworn falsely . . he hall bring his guilt offering; this implies that an offering is not brought for all things, but of all things: of excludes something, i.e., land, because land is (after bonds) least similar to the particulars mentioned by Scripture. gcah rat kfn');">³³</span> for Scripture say's, 'of all', and not, 'all'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. V, 24: .');">³⁴</span> R'Papa said in the name of Raba: Our Mishnah too is evidence,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In support of R. Johanan that there is no liability to bring an offering for an oath in respect of a land claim.');">³⁵</span> for it states: 'THOU HAST STOLEN MY OX,' AND THE OTHER SAYS, 'I HAVE NOT STOLEN IT.' - 'I ADJURE THEE,' AND HE RESPONDS, 'AMEN!' HE IS LIABLE. - Now, 'Thou hast stolen my slave' it does not state. What is the reason? is it not because a slave is likened to land, and an offering is not brought for a denial of a hypothecary pledge of lands? - Said R'Pappi in the name of Raba: Say the final clause: THIS IS THE PRINCIPLE: WHENEVER HE PAYS ON HIS OWN ADMISSION, HE IS LIABLE; AND WHEN HE DOES NOT PAY ON HIS OWN ADMISSION, HE IS EXEMPT. - This is the principle: What does this include?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The principle is obvious from the previous examples; the Mishnah, in stating this clause, therefore wishes us to infer something additional.');">³⁶</span> Does it not include [the case where he claims], 'Thou hast stolen my slave'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For here also the thief pays on his own admission; hence, in his case too, he is liable to bring an offering for a false oath.');">³⁷</span>