שבועות 30 — parallel

30:1

MISHNAH. THE OATH OF TESTIMONY APPLIES TO MEN AND NOT TO WOMEN, TO NON-RELATIVES AND NOT TO RELATIVES, TO THOSE QUALIFIED [TO BEAR WITNESS] AND NOT TO THOSE UNQUALIFIED; AND IT APPLIES ONLY TO THOSE LIABLE TO BEAR WITNESS; AND WHETHER [UTTERED] BEFORE THE BETH DIN OR NOT BEFORE THE BETH DIN, IF [UTTERED] WITH HIS OWN MOUTH; BUT IF [ADJURED] BY THE MOUTH OF OTHERS HE IS NOT LIABLE UNLESS HE DENIES IT BEFORE THE BETH DIN; THIS IS THE OPINION OF R. MEIR. BUT THE SAGES SAY: WHETHER [UTTERED] WITH HIS OWN MOUTH OR [ADJURED] BY THE MOUTH OF OTHERS HE IS NOT LIABLE UNLESS HE DENIES IT BEFORE THE BETH DIN. AND THEY ARE LIABLE FOR WILFUL TRANSGRESSION OF THE OATH, AND FOR ITS UNWITTING TRANSGRESSION COUPLED WITH WILFUL [DENIAL OF KNOWLEDGE OF] TESTIMONY; BUT THEY ARE NOT LIABLE FOR ITS UNWITTING TRANSGRESSION. AND WHAT ARE THEY LIABLE FOR THE WILFUL TRANSGRESSION OF THE OATH? A SLIDING SCALE SACRIFICE. GEMARA. How do we know? — Because the Rabbis taught: And the two men shall stand. the verse refers to witnesses. — You say [it refers to] witnesses; but perhaps [it refers to] the litigants? When it says: between whom the controversy is, the litigants are already mentioned; hence, how do I explain and the two men shall stand, [Therefore,] the verse refers to witnesses. And if you wish to say [something to refute this deduction, I give you another]: Here it is said, ‘two’, and there it is said, ‘two’; just as there it refers to witnesses, so here it refers to witnesses. What is meant by: If you wish to say [something to refute the deduction]? — You might say, because the verse did not write: and those between whom the controversy is, the whole verse refers to the litigants, [therefore, I give the second deduction:] here it is said: two, and there it is said: two; just as there it refers to witnesses, so here it refers to witnesses. Another [Baraitha] taught: And the two men shall stand; the verse refers to witnesses. You say [it refers to] witnesses; but perhaps [it refers to] the litigants? You may retort: Do, then, two come to court, and do not three ever come to court? But if you wish to say something [to refute this deduction, I give you another]: Here it is said, ‘two’, and there it is said, ‘two’,’ just as there it refers to witnesses, so here it refers to witnesses. What is meant by: If you wish to say [something to refute this]? You might say, the verse refers to plaintiff and defendant, [therefore I give the second deduction:] here it is said, ‘two’, and there it is said, ‘two’; just as there it refers to witnesses, so here it refers to witnesses. Another [Baraitha] teaches: And the two men shall stand; the verse refers to witnesses. You say [it refers to] witnesses; but perhaps [it refers to] the litigants? You may retort: Do, then, men come to court, and do not women ever come to court? But if you wish to say [something to refute this deduction, I give you another]: Here it is said, ‘two’, and there it is said, ‘two’; just as there it refers to witnesses, so here it refers to witnesses. What is meant by: If you wish to say [something to refute this]? — You might say, it is not usual for a woman, because all glorious is the King's daughter within, [therefore I give the second deduction:] here it is said, ‘two’, and there it is said, ‘two’; just as there it refers to witnesses, so here it refers to witnesses. Our Rabbis taught: And the two men shall stand: it is a precept that the litigants stand. R. Judah said: I heard that if they desire to allow them both to sit, they may allow them to sit. What is prohibited? One should not stand, and the other sit; one speak all that he wishes, and the other bidden to be brief. Our Rabbis taught: In righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour: that one should not sit, and the other stand; one speak all that he wishes, and the other bidden to be brief. Another interpretation: In righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour: judge thy neighbour in the scale of merit. R. Joseph learnt: In righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour- he who is with thee in Torah and precepts — endeavour to judge him favourably. R. Ulla the son of R. Elai had a case before R. Nahman. R. Joseph sent [a message] to him: Our friend Ulla is a neighbour in Torah and precepts. Said [R. Nahman]: Why did he send [this message] to me? That I should favour him? Then he said: [Probably] that I should settle his case first;29

—

30:2

or, [with reference to] the discretion of the judges. Ulla said: The controversy is in regard to the litigants, but in regard to witnesses all agree that they must stand, for it is written: And the two men shall stand. R. Huna said: The controversy is in regard to the time of the discussion, but at the time of the completion of the case all agree that the judges sit and the litigants stand, for it is written: And Moses sat to judge the people; and the people stood. Another version: The controversy is in regard to the time of the discussion, but at the time of the completion of the case all agree that the judges sit and the litigants stand, for witnesses are like the completion of the case, and it is written with reference to them: And the two men shall stand. The widow of R. Huna had a case before R. Nahman. He said [to himself]: What shall I do? If I should rise before her, the plea of her opponent will be stopped up; if I should not rise before her, [I should be doing wrong, for] the wife of a scholar is like a scholar. So he said to his attendant: ‘Go and make a duck fly over me, and urge it towards me, so that I will rise.’ But the Master said: The controversy is in regard to the time of the discussion, but at the time of the completion of the case all agree that the judges sit and the litigants stand! — He sits as one who unties his shoes, and says, ‘You, So-and-so, are innocent, and you, So-and-so, are guilty.’ Rabbah son of R. Huna said: If a Rabbinical scholar and an illiterate person have some dispute with each other, [and come to court,] we persuade the Rabbinical scholar to sit; and to the illiterate person we also say, ‘Sit’, and if he stands, it matters not. Rab son of R. Sherabya had a case before R. Papa. He told him to sit, and told his opponent also to sit; but the attendant of the court came and nudged the illiterate man and made him stand up. And R. Papa did not say to him, ‘Sit’. How could he do so; will not the other's plea be stopped up? — R. Papa may say: He will say, ‘He has asked me to sit, but the attendant was not appeased by me.’ And Rabbah son of R. Huna said: If a Rabbinical scholar and an illiterate person have some dispute with each other, the scholar should not come first and sit down [before the judge], because it will appear as if he is setting forth his case. And we do not say this except when he has not a fixed time with him; but if he has a fixed time with him, it matters not, for he will say, he is occupied with his lesson. And Rabbah son of R. Huna said: If a Rabbinical scholar knows some testimony, and it is undignified for him to go to the judge, who is inferior to him, to give testimony before him, he need not go. R. Shisha the son of R. Idi said: We also learnt thus: If he found a sack or a basket which it is not his custom to handle, he need not take it. However, this is only the case in money matters, but in the case of a prohibition [he must give evidence, for it is written]: There is no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the Lord: wherever there is a profanation of the Name, the honour of a scholar is not regarded. R. Yemar knew some testimony for Mar Zutra, and came before Amemar. He told them all to sit. Said R. Ashi to Amemar: Did not Ulla say: The controversy is in regard to the litigants, but in regard to witnesses all agree that they should stand? — He replied to him: This is a positive precept, and that is a positive precept; the positive precept enjoining respect for the Torah is greater. (Mnemonic: Advocate, Uncultured, Robbery, False.) Our Rabbis taught: How do we know that a judge should not appoint an advocate for his words? — Because it is said: From a false matter keep far. And how do we know that a judge should not allow an uncultured disciple to sit before him? Because it is said: From a false matter keep far. And how do we know that a judge who knows his colleague to be a robber, or a witness who knows his colleague to be a robber, should not join with him? Because it is said: From a false matter keep far. And how do we know that a judge who knows that a plea is false should not say, Since the witnesses give evidence, I will decide it, and

—