Shevuot

that So-and-So uttered an evil report about my daughter’;1 [and the witnesses deny knowledge of testimony] they are liable. If he confessed himself, he is exempt!2 — This is in accordance with the view of R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon, who says, let the witnesses come and bear testimony.3 Read then the latter clause: ‘If he confessed himself, he is exempt’.4 We here thus come round to [the view of] the Rabbis! — It is all in accordance with the view of R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon; and thus he means: It is not possible that, if he confessed himself, he should be exempt, except when there are no witnesses at all, and he confessed himself.5 MISHNAH. ‘I ADJURE YOU THAT YOU COME AND BEAR TESTIMONY FOR ME THAT I AM A PRIEST, OR, THAT I AM A LEVITE, OR, THAT I AM NOT THE SON OF A DIVORCED WOMAN, OR, THAT I AM NOT THE SON OF A HALUZAH;6 THAT SO-AND-SO IS A PRIEST, OR, THAT SO-AND-SO IS A LEVITE, OR, THAT HE IS NOT THE SON OF A DIVORCED WOMAN, OR, THAT HE IS NOT THE SON OF A HALUZAH; THAT SO-AND-SO VIOLATED ANOTHER'S DAUGHTER, OR SEDUCED HIS DAUGHTER; THAT MY SON INJURED ME;7 THAT MY NEIGHBOUR INJURED ME,8 OR SET FIRE TO MY HAYSTACK ON THE SABBATH,’ — THEY ARE EXEMPT.9 GEMARA. The reason [they are exempt] is because [he adjured them:] ‘SO-AND-SO IS A PRIEST, OR, SO-AND-SO IS A LEVITE’,10 but [if he adjured them:] ‘So-and-So owes So-and-So a hundred zuz’, they would be liable? Surely he teaches in a later clause: [They are exempt] unless they hear [the adjuration] from the mouth of the claimant!11 — Samuel said: [It refers to a case where] he comes with power of attorney.12 But the Nehardeans say: We do not write an authorisation on movables!13 — That is only when he denies it, but when he does not deny it, we do write. 14 Our Rabbis taught: How do we know that the verse refers only to a money claim? R. Eliezer said, Here15 it is said: or . . . or;16 and there17 it is said: or . . . or;18 just as there it refers only to a money claim, so here it refers only to a money claim. But let the or . . . or of a murderer19 prove [that a money claim is not intended], for they are or . . . or, and refer not to a money claim! We deduce or . . . or which are concerned with an oath20 from or . . . or which are concerned with an oath;21 and let not the or . . . or of a murderer prove [anything], for they are not concerned with an oath. But let the or . . . or a sotah22 prove, for they are or . . . or,23 and are concerned with an oath,24 and refer not to a money claim!25 We deduce or . . . or which are concerned with an oath, and not concerned with a priest from or . . . or which are concerned with an oath, and not concerned with a priest; and let not the or . . . or of a murderer prove [anything], for they are not concerned with an oath; nor let the or . . . or of a sotah prove [anything], for, although they are concerned with an oath, they are also concerned with a priest. R. Akiba said: And it shall be, when he shall be guilty in one of these things26 — in some of ‘these things’ he is liable, and in some of ‘these things’ he is exempt: how is this? If he claimed from him money, he27 is liable, if something else, he is exempt. R. Jose the Galilean said, Behold Scripture says: He being a witness, whether he hath seen or known28 — of such testimony as may be established by seeing without knowing, and by knowing without seeing, the verse deals.29 ‘Seeing without knowing’, how? ‘A hundred zuz I counted out to you before So-and-so and So-and-so.’30 ‘Let So-and-so and So-and-so come and bear testimony.’31 This is seeing without knowing. ‘Knowing without seeing’, how? ‘You admitted that you owe me a hundred zuz before So-and-So and So-and-so.’32 ‘Let So-and-so and So-and-so come and bear testimony.’33 This is knowing without seeing. R. Simeon said: He is liable here,34 and he is liable in [the case of] deposit; just as there it deals only with a money claim, so here it deals only with a money claim; and further, [we have an argument] from minor to major: Deposit, where the law makes women equal to men, relatives equal to non-relatives, those ineligible [to bear testimony] equal to those eligible, and where he is liable for of silver; ibid. 19. testimony, they are liable. Hence it is proved that if witnesses for a fine are adjured and withhold testimony they are liable. Rabbis) whether or not witnesses who are adjured for a fine and withhold testimony, are liable. her husband's brother. refusal to testify they cause a monetary loss to the claimant. In the case of ‘So-and-so violated another's daughter’, they are exempt (though causing monetary loss) because it is not the claimant himself who adjures them. adjured them was not the claimant, refers to a case where he who adjured the witnesses was authorised by the creditor to claim the debt on his behalf. testimony, would cause a loss to the claimant, and therefore be liable. was a gift or loan or repayment of debt.’