Shevuot

Obviously, therefore, merely so that there should not be any absolution for their oath. 1 ‘IF I HAVE NOT SEEN A SERPENT LIKE THE BEAM OF THE OLIVE PRESS.’ And is it not [possible]?2 Lo! There was one in the reign of King Shapur3 which swallowed thirteen hides4 stuffed with straw.5 — Samuel said: [He meant] striped.6 But they are all striped! [He meant] striped on his back.7 ‘I SWEAR I SHALL EAT THIS LOAF; I SWEAR I SHALL NOT EAT IT’, etc. Now, for the oath of utterance he is liable, and for the vain oath he is not liable?8 Surely, the oath was uttered in vain! — R. Jeremiah said: Learn, ALSO THE OATH OF UTTERANCE.9 MISHNAH. THE OATH OF UTTERANCE APPLIES TO MEN AND WOMEN, TO RELATIVES AND NON-RELATIVES,10 TO THOSE QUALIFIED [TO BEAR WITNESS] AND THOSE NOT QUALIFIED,11 [WHETHER UTTERED] BEFORE THE BETH DIN, OR NOT BEFORE THE BETH DIN, [BUT IT MUST BE UTTERED] WITH A MAN'S OWN MOUTH;12 AND HE IS LIABLE, FOR WILFUL TRANSGRESSION, STRIPES, AND FOR UNWITTING TRANSGRESSION, A SLIDING SCALE SACRIFICE. A VAIN OATH APPLIES TO MEN AND WOMEN, TO NON-RELATIVES AND RELATIVES, TO THOSE QUALIFIED [TO BEAR WITNESS] AND THOSE NOT QUALIFIED, [WHETHER UTTERED] BEFORE THE BETH DIN OR NOT BEFORE THE BETH DIN, [BUT IT MUST BE UTTERED] WITH HIS OWN MOUTH; AND HE IS LIABLE, FOR WILFUL TRANSGRESSION, STRIPES, AND FOR UNWITTING TRANSGRESSION HE IS EXEMPT. [IN THE CASE OF] BOTH THIS AND THAT [OATH], IF HE WAS ADJURED BY THE MOUTH OF OTHERS, HE IS LIABLE; THUS, IF HE SAID, ‘I HAVE NOT EATEN TODAY,’ OR, ‘I HAVE NOT PUT ON TEFILLIN TODAY,’ [AND THE OTHER SAID,] ‘I ADJURE THEE,’ AND HE SAID, ‘AMEN!’ HE IS LIABLE. GEMARA. Samuel said: He who responds ‘Amen’ after an oath — it is as if he uttered the oath with his own mouth, for it is written: And the woman shall say, Amen, Amen.13 R. Papa said in the name of Raba: A Mishnah and a Baraitha also prove it, for the Mishnah states: ‘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.’14 And in the Baraitha it was taught: What is the oath of testimony? He said to witnesses, ‘Come and bear testimony for me;’ [and they replied,] ‘We swear we know no testimony for you,’ or they said,15 ‘We know no testimony for you,’ [and he said,] ‘I adjure you,’ and they responded. ‘Amen’ — whether [it was uttered] before the Beth din, or not before the Beth din, whether from their own mouths or the mouths of others, since they denied [knowing any testimony], they are liable: this is the opinion of R. Meir. Now, they contradict each other!16 Obviously, therefore, we deduce from this that here17 [it is a case where] he said ‘Amen,’18 and there19 [a case where] he did not say ‘Amen’. This proves it.20 Rabina said in the name of Raba: Our Mishnah also proves it, for it states: THE OATH OF UTTERANCE APPLIES TO MEN AND WOMEN, TO NON-RELATIVES AND RELATIVES, TO THOSE QUALIFIED [TO BEAR WITNESS] AND THOSE NOT QUALIFIED, [WHETHER UTTERED] BEFORE THE BETH DIN OR NOT BEFORE THE BETH DIN, [BUT IT MUST BE UTTERED] WITH HIS OWN MOUTH. [Hence, if uttered] WITH HIS OWN MOUTH, he is liable; but from the mouth of others, he is not liable. And yet the last clause states: [IN THE CASE] OF BOTH THIS AND THAT [OATH], IF HE WAS ADJURED BY THE MOUTH OF OTHERS HE IS LIABLE. Thus they contradict each other! Obviously, therefore, we must infer from this that here21 [it is a case where] he said ‘Amen’, and there22 [a case where] he did not say ‘Amen’. — But, if so, what does Samuel teach us?23 — The deduction of the Mishnah he teaches us.24 [ accordance with the mouth (i.e., actual words uttered); therefore, ‘I have seen a camel flying’ is a vain oath. coals were concealed.] serpents are flat only at the belly, v. Lewysohn, Zoologie, p. 234.] loaf)? The vain oath, when uttered, was designed to annul a precept (not to fulfil the previous oath); and if one swears to annul a precept, would he not be liable even if he fulfils the oath, and annuls the precept? or not. since he himself did not utter the oath. If, however, he says. ‘Amen’ to the other's adjuration, it is counted as an oath (v. infra). pronounces the oath, and the woman merely responds, ‘Amen’. Beth din; and in the Baraitha he says that, even if adjured by others, they are liable even if the adjuration be not uttered before the Beth din. This is so easily and obviously deduced from the Mishnah! and we should not think that the first clause, in stating that the oath must be uttered by himself, does not thereby desire to exclude adjuration by others, but mentions it merely because it is more usual for the oath to be uttered by himself; and that the last clause, in stating that adjuration by others makes him liable, if he responds, ‘Amen’, does not thereby desire to imply that if he does not respond, ‘Amen’, he is not liable, but merely mentions ‘Amen’ because it is usual for ‘Amen’ to be said in response to an oath, but that really he is liable, if adjured by others, even if he does not say, ‘Amen’. Therefore, Samuel states that the Mishnah really does desire to make this distinction in adjuration by others [between the case where ‘Amen’ is said and the case where it is not said.