Shevuot

MISHNAH. THE OATH OF TESTIMONY1 APPLIES TO MEN AND NOT TO WOMEN,2 TO NON-RELATIVES AND NOT TO RELATIVES,3 TO THOSE QUALIFIED [TO BEAR WITNESS] AND NOT TO THOSE UNQUALIFIED;4 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;5 BUT THEY ARE NOT LIABLE FOR ITS UNWITTING TRANSGRESSION.6 AND WHAT ARE THEY LIABLE FOR THE WILFUL TRANSGRESSION OF THE OATH? A SLIDING SCALE SACRIFICE. GEMARA. How do we know?7 — Because the Rabbis taught: And the two men shall stand.8 the verse refers to witnesses.9 — You say [it refers to] witnesses; but perhaps [it refers to] the litigants? When it says: between whom the controversy is,10 the litigants are already mentioned; hence, how do I explain and the two men shall stand, [Therefore,] the verse refers to witnesses.11 And if you wish to say [something to refute this deduction, I give you another]: Here12 it is said, ‘two’, and there13 it is said, ‘two’; just as there it refers to witnesses, so here it refers to witnesses.14 What is meant by: If you wish to say [something to refute the deduction]?15 — You might say, because the verse did not write: and those between whom the controversy is, the whole verse refers to the litigants,16 [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?17 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,18 [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?19 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,20 because all glorious is the King's daughter within,21 [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 they22 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:23 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.24 R. Joseph learnt: In righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour- he who is with thee25 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:26 Our friend Ulla is a neighbour27 in Torah and precepts. Said [R. Nahman]: Why did he send [this message] to me? That I should favour him?28 Then he said: [Probably] that I should settle his case first;29 as the sacrifice is concerned, i.e., not knowing that they are liable to bring a sacrifice for the transgression of the oath. sacrifice, for they swore falsely merely by accident. and the judges. superfluously, ‘the two men,’ the reference is to witnesses, and what follows, ‘between whom the controversy is,’ is an asyndeton construction. inferred definitely that the two men refers to witnesses: since, however, the verse writes: And the two men between whom the controversy is, it refers to litigants only. protagonists, plaintiffs on the one side, and defendants on the other. litigants. possible.