Shevuot

The second set are still there!1 — Rabina said: Here we are discussing [a case] where, for example, the second set, at the time of the denial of the first set, were related through their wives;2 and their wives were dying: you might have thought [because we say] the majority of dying people actually die [the second set are eligible],3 therefore he teaches us [that they are not], because as yet the wives are not dead.4 MISHNAH. ‘I ADJURE YOU THAT YOU COME AND BEAR TESTIMONY FOR ME THAT THERE ARE OF MINE IN THE POSSESSION OF SO-AND-SO A DEPOSIT, LOAN, THEFT, AND LOST OBJECT.’5 — ‘WE SWEAR WE KNOW NO TESTIMONY FOR YOU’: THEY ARE LIABLE ONLY ONCE. ‘WE SWEAR WE KNOW NOT THAT THERE ARE OF YOURS IN THE POSSESSION OF SO-AND-SO A DEPOSIT, LOAN, THEFT, AND LOST OBJECT’: THEY ARE LIABLE FOR EACH ONE. ‘I ADJURE YOU THAT YOU BEAR TESTIMONY FOR ME THAT THERE IS OF MINE IN THE POSSESSION OF SO-AND-SO A DEPOSIT OF WHEAT, BARLEY, AND SPELT’. — ‘WE SWEAR WE KNOW NO TESTIMONY FOR YOU’: THEY ARE LIABLE ONLY ONCE. ‘WE SWEAR WE KNOW NO TESTIMONY FOR YOU THAT THERE IS OF YOURS IN THE POSSESSION OF SO-AND-SO A DEPOSIT OF WHEAT, BARLEY, AND SPELT’: THEY ARE LIABLE FOR EACH ONE.6 — ‘I ADJURE YOU THAT YOU COME AND BEAR TESTIMONY FOR ME THAT SO-AND-SO OWES ME FULL INDEMNITY FOR DAMAGE, OR HALF INDEMNITY,7 OR DOUBLE,8 OR FOUR OR FIVE TIMES THE AMOUNT;9 OR THAT SO-AND-SO VIOLATED MY DAUGHTER, OR SEDUCED MY DAUGHTER;10 OR THAT MY SON SMOTE ME;11 OR THAT MY NEIGHBOUR INJURED ME, OR SET FIRE TO MY HAYSTACK ON THE DAY OF ATONEMENT’;12 [AND THEY DENY KNOWLEDGE OF TESTIMONY] THEY ARE LIABLE.13 GEMARA. It was debated: If he adjures witnesses in [a case where] a fine [is imposed],14 what is the ruling? In accordance with the view of R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon who says, let the witnesses come and hear testimony, there is no question;15 but the question is in accordance with the view of the Rabbis who say, he who admits [an act for which] a fine [is imposed], and then witnesses come, is exempt.16 But [consider] the Rabbis there,17 with whom do they agree? Shall we say they agree with R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon here?18 Surely he says, that which causes [extraction of] money is counted as [if it had extracted] money!19 — Well then, they agree with the Rabbis here20 who say that which causes [extraction of] money is not counted as [if it had extracted] money: what is the ruling? [Shall we say] since, if he had confessed, he would have been exempt,21 he is not denying [a legitimate] money [liability],22 or, since now he did not actually confess, [he is denying a money liability]?23 — Come and hear: ‘I ADJURE YOU THAT YOU COME AND BEAR TESTIMONY FOR ME THAT SO-AND-SO OWES ME FULL INDEMNITY FOR DAMAGE, OR HALF INDEMNITY’. Now, half indemnity is a fine,24 [and yet they are liable]!25 — [The Mishnah will agree with him] who holds the half indemnity is a liability.26 That is well according to him who holds that the half indemnity is a liability, but according to him who holds it is a fine, what shall we say?27 — [The Mishnah will refer to] the half indemnity of pebbles,28 for which there is a tradition that it is a liability. Come and hear: ‘[SO-AND-SO OWES ME] DOUBLE’!29 — Because of the principal.30 ‘FOUR OR FIVE TIMES THE AMOUNT’! — Because of the principal. — ‘SO-AND-SO VIOLATED, OR SEDUCED MY DAUGHTER’!31 — Because of the shame and deterioration.32 What does he teach us? It is all liability!33 — The first clause teaches us one thing, and the last clause teaches us one thing. The first clause teaches us one thing, that the half indemnity of pebbles is a liability.34 The last clause teaches us one thing: ‘THAT HE SET FIRE TO MY HAYSTACK ON THE DAY OF ATONEMENT’ [etc.]. What does this exclude? It excludes the view of R. Nehunia b. Hakkanah, for it was taught: R. Nehunia b. Hakkanah made the Day of Atonement equivalent to the Sabbath for payment; just as on the Sabbath, etc.35 Come and hear: ‘I adjure you that you come and bear testimony for me since they are now eligible, the first set should be exempt, because the second set are there to give evidence. claimant incur a loss. some wheat which I had lost’. the claim is under different heads (deposit, loan, theft, lost object), but one kind (e.g., wheat). ox); Ex. XXI, 37. (odp). the lesser penalty (compensation for ,auc) is not inflicted, but is merged in the larger. inflicted. a real liability (iunn). Any payment that does not correspond to the amount of damage caused is considered a fine. evidence, he is liable, according to R. Eleazar b. R. Simeon. If, therefore, the witnesses withhold their testimony, they cause a pecuniary loss to the injured party, and are therefore liable. bear testimony before he confesses, and deny knowledge of testimony, they are exempt; or, since, if they had given evidence before his confession, he would have been liable, they are, by withholding evidence, causing a loss to the claimant, and consequently should be liable? adjured before the confession, should be liable, because, by withholding their evidence, they cause loss to the claimant. they cause a loss to the claimant, for that is merely iunnk orud. therefore liable. while yet a Tam (v. Glos.), Ex. XXI, 35; and this is a fine, B.K. 15a. property, the owner of the animal pays half the amount of the damage; B.K. 17a. problem. shekels) for the shame, and also for the deterioration in value of the girl (which sums are iunn, not xbe). One clause would suffice. that they are either more or less than the principal. damage; so on the Day of Atonement, because he incurs the penalty of kareth, he does not pay; Keth. 30a. Our Mishnah, in stating that the witnesses are liable if they withhold evidence in the case of a man who set fire to a haystack on the Day of Atonement, obviously holds that had they given evidence he would have had to pay, hence it disagrees with R. Nehunia b. Hakkanah. This last clause is therefore inserted to exclude R. Nehunia b. Hakkanah's view.