Shevuot

the chain [of guilt] will hang round the neck of the witnesses?1 — Because it is said: From a false matter keep far. (Mnemonic: Three [of] disciples, Three [of] creditors, Rags, Hearing, Explaining.) How do we know that a disciple sitting before his master, who sees that the poor man is right and the wealthy man wrong, should not remain silent?2 Because it is said: From a false matter keep far. And how do we know that a disciple, who sees his master making a mistake in the law, should not say, I will wait until he finishes, and then upset his decision, and build up [another decision] according to my own judgment, so that the decision will be called by my name? Because it is said: From a false matter keep far. And how do we know that a disciple to whom his master says, ‘You know that if I were given a hundred manehs, I would not tell a lie; now, So-and-so owes me one maneh, and I have only one witness against him;’ how do we know that the disciple should not join with him?3 — Because it is said: From a false matter keep far. — Is this, then, deduced from: From a false matter keep far? Surely this is definitely lying, and the Divine Law said: Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour!4 — Well, then, for example, if he said to him, ‘I have definitely one witness; and you come and stand there,5 and you need not say anything, so that you will not be uttering a lie from your mouth;’6 even so it is prohibited, because It is said: From a false matter keep far. How do we know that he who has a claim of a hundred zuzim against his neighbour should not say, ‘I will claim two hundred, so that he will admit a hundred, and be liable for an oath,7 then I will be able to impose an oath upon him from another place’?8 — Because it is said: From a false matter keep far. And how do we know that, if one has a claim of a hundred zuzim against his neighbour, and sues for two hundred, the debtor should not say, ‘I will deny it totally in court, but admit it outside the court, so that I should not be liable for an oath, and he may not impose on me an oath from another place’? Because it is said: From a false matter keep far. And how do we know that, if three persons have a claim of a hundred zuzim against one person,9 one should not be the litigant, and the other two, the witnesses, in order that they may extract the hundred zuzim and divide it? Because it is said: From a false matter keep far. How do we know that, if two come to court, one clothed in rags and the other in fine raiment worth a hundred manehs, they10 should say to him,11 ‘Either dress like him, or dress him like you’?12 — Because it is said: From a false matter keep far. When they13 would come before Raba son of R. Huna, he would say to them, ‘Remove your fine shoes, and come down for your case.’ How do we know that a judge should not hear the words of one litigant before the other litigant arrives? — Because it is said: From a false matter keep far. And how do we know that a litigant should not explain his case to the judge before the other litigant arrives? — Because it is said: From a false matter keep far. R. Kahana learnt [these deductions] from: Thou shalt not utter [a false report]:14 thou shalt not cause to be uttered.15 And did that which is not good among his people:16 Rab said this refers to one who comes with power of attorney;17 and Samuel said it refers to one who buys a field about which there are disputes.18 AND IT APPLIES ONLY TO THOSE LIABLE TO BEAR WITNESS, etc. What does this exclude? — R. Papa said, it excludes a king;19 and R. Aha b. Jacob said, it excludes a dice player.20 He who says [it excludes] a dice player certainly [holds it excludes] a king;21 but he who says [it excludes] a king [holds it does not exclude] a dice player, for he is fit [to be a witness] according to Holy Writ, and it is the Rabbis who have disqualified him.22 BEFORE THE BETH DIN OR NOT BEFORE THE BETH DIN, etc. In what do they disagree?23 — Said the Scholars to R. Papa: They disagree [as to whether we say,] ‘deduce from it, and [entirely] from it’; or, ‘deduce from it, and establish it in its own place’.24 R. Meir holds, ‘deduce from it, and [entirely] from it’. ‘Deduce from it’:25 just as [in the case of] a deposit, if he swears of his own accord,26 he is liable, so [in the case of] testimony, if he swears of his own accord, he is liable;27 ‘and [entirely] from it’ — just as [in the case of] a deposit [he is liable] whether [he utters the oath] before the Beth Din or not before the Beth Din,28 so [in the case of] testimony [he is liable] whether [he utters the oath] before the Beth Din or not before the Beth Din. And the Rabbis29 hold, ‘deduce from it, and establish it in its own place’: ‘Deduce from it:’30 just as [in the case of] a deposit, if he swears of his own accord, he is liable, so [in the case of] testimony, if he swears of his own accord, he is liable; ‘and establish it in its own place’: just as when adjured by others, [he is liable only if he swears] before the Beth Din,31 but not [if he swears] not before the Beth Din, so if he swears of his own accord, before the Beth Din he is liable, but if not before the Beth Din he is not liable. imposed; but since he has to take an oath in this case, the court can at the same time include the previous claim in the oath. of the other, because the litigant, in his opponent's absence, may be tempted to lie. warning to the litigant not to explain his case to the judge in his opponent's absence, because he may be tempted to lie, and will thereby cause the judge to accept a false report, v. Sanh. 7b. undertakes it merely our of love of contention and litigation, for the litigant himself might have been willing to compromise, whereas he presses for the full amount of the claim. If, however, the litigant himself is not able to appear for some reason, and he is acting on his behalf, in order to obtain his money for him, he is doing a meritorious act; v. Tosaf. a.l. stand as a witness before the Judge; and since he cannot be a witness (Sanh. 18a), the oath of testimony does not apply. being a witness. The Torah disqualifies only xnj sg (Ex. XXIII, 1). ‘a witness of violence’, i.e., who has been guilty of robbery by violence. applies in his case, for, according to the Torah, he may be a witness. vua vrzd from another subject concerning which Holy Writ states the law explicitly, we may either deduce one from the other entirely (i.e liken the unexplained subject to the explained subject in every respect), or deduce only one point, and, as for the rest, leave the unexplained subject in its own place, i.e., leave it to be governed by the rules which govern other aspects of it. 21), and in the case of the oath of testimony it is also said tyj, (Lev. V, 1). Beth Din. if he had told it (i.e., given his testimony), it would have been effective, i.e., before the Beth Din.