שבועות 34:2 — Soncino English Talmud

and witnesses had been watching him from outside, what [is the ruling]? — R. Hamnuna said to him: And what does that one plead? If he says, ‘The thing never occurred’, he is proven a liar. If he says, ‘Yes, I took [the money], but it was my own that I took’, if witnesses come, what happens? — He said to him: ‘Hamnuna, you come and go in’. A certain [man] said to his neighbour. ‘A hundred zuz I counted out to you by the side of this pillar’. He replied to him, ‘I did not pass by the side of this pillar’. Two witnesses came and bore testimony that he had urinated by the side of that pillar. Said Resh Lakish, he is proven a liar. R. Nahman raised an objection: This is a Persian judgment! Did he then say ‘never’? In connection with this affair, he meant. Some say: A certain [man] said to his neighbour. ‘A hundred zuz I counted out to you by the side of this pillar’. He replied to him, ‘I never passed by the side of this pillar’. Witnesses came that he had urinated by the side of that pillar. R. Nahman said, he is proven a liar. Said Raba to R. Nahman; Anything which is not imposed upon a man he will do without being conscious of it. ‘R. Simeon said: He is liable here, and he is liable in [the case of] deposit, etc.’ They laughed at it in the West. Why the laughter? — Because he states; ‘Deposit [is restricted to money claims] because the law does not make him who is adjured [by others] like him who swears [of his own accord], nor him who swears wilfully like him who swears unwittingly.’ Now, he who swears of his own accord in [the case of] testimony — how does R. Simeon know [that he is liable]? Because he deduces it from deposit; then let him also in [the case of] deposit deduce adjuration by others from testimony. But why the laughter? Perhaps R. Simeon deduces it by argument from minor to major: if when adjured by others he is liable, when he swears of his own accord he should the more so be liable? — Well then, the laughter is in connection with ‘wilful like unwitting’, for he states: ‘Deposit [is restricted to money claims] because the law does not make him who is adjured [by others] like him who swears [of his own accord], nor him who swears wilfully like him who swears unwittingly.’ Now for swearing wilfully in [the case of] testimony, how do we know [that he is liable]? Because it is not written, and it be hidden. Here also it is not written, and it be hidden. R. Huna said to them: But why the laughter? Perhaps R. Simeon deduces that wilful [transgression] is not like unwitting in [the case of] deposit from [the law of] trespass [in holy things]. — This then is the very reason for the laughter: why does he deduce it from trespass? Let him rather deduce it from testimony! — It is more reasonable that he should deduce it from trespass, because it is ‘trespass’ from ‘trespass’! On the contrary, he should deduce it from testimony, because it is ‘sin’ from ‘sin’. It is more reasonable that he should deduce it from trespass, because [they are both equal in respect of] ‘trespass’, all, enjoyment, fixed offering, fifth, and guilt offering. On the contrary, he should deduce it from testimony, because [they are both equal in respect of] ‘sin’, layman, oath, claim and denial, and ‘or . . . or’! — The others are more. Well then, why the laughter? — When R. Papa and R. Huna the son of R. Joshua came from the Academy, they said this is the reason for the laughter: Behold R. Simeon deduces by analogy [testimony from deposit]. Why then does he argue: ‘Deposit [is restricted to money claims] because the law does not make him who is adjured [by others] like him who swears [of his own accord], nor him who swears wilfully like him who swears unwittingly.’ But why the laughter? Perhaps he argued thus before he established the analogy, but after he established the analogy he does not argue thus. But does he not? Surely Raba b. Ithi said to the Sages: Who is the Tanna who holds that [in the case of] the oath of deposit wilful transgression is not atoned for [by an offering]? It is R. Simeon! — Perhaps he argues that wilful transgression [is not] like unwitting [in the case of deposit], because he deduces it from trespass since [it is equal to it] in more respects; but that adjuration by others [is not] like swearing of his own accord he does not argue. — Well, let testimony now be in turn deduced from deposit that wilful is not like unwitting transgression; just as [in the case of] deposit he is liable for unwitting but not for wilful transgression, so [in the case of] testimony let him be liable for unwitting and not for wilful transgression; just as he deduces deposit from trespass! —^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ

^ᵃnote:Unknown to the debtor.
^ᵇnote:The debtor.
^ᶜnote:And is not believed on oath, but must pay.
^ᵈnote:The witnesses only saw him count the money, but they do not know if it was a loan, or gift, or the repayment of a loan.
^ᵉnote:To the Academy; i.e., you are fit to teach.
^ᶠnote:An arbitrary decision.
^ᵍnote:‘I never passed by this pillar’.
^ʰnote:An act which is not of sufficient importance to be done with concentration.
^ⁱnote:Therefore he may really be unaware that he had urinated near the pillar, and should not be presumed a liar.
^ʲnote:Supra 33b.
^ᵏnote:[Phrase generally denoting R. Jose b. Hanninah, v. Sanh. 17b.]
^ˡnote:For Scripture implies only adjuration by others; Lev. V, 1.
^ᵐnote:Where Scripture implies that only he who swears of his own accord is liable; Lev. V, 21, 22. R. Simeon deduces testimony from deposit by analogy of phrases: tyj, tyj,.
^ⁿnote:By the same analogy. Why then assume that in the case of deposit adjuration by others does not make him liable? This was the cause of the laughter.
^ᵒnote:He does not deduce testimony from deposit by vua vrzd from tyj, tyj,; he argues that in the case of testimony, where Scripture says adjuration by others makes him liable, he should certainly be liable if he swears of his own accord. Since he does not make use of the vua vrzd, he does not use it for deducing deposit from testimony either.
^ᵖnote:In the case of deposit.
^ᵠnote:Therefore let us say that for swearing falsely wilfully he is also liable to bring an offering. Because R. Simeon did not say this, they laughed.
^ʳnote:Lev. V, 15: If any one commit a trespass, and sin through error in the holy things. And in the case of deposit Scripture says: If any one sin, and commit a trespass: Lev. V, 21. We deduce deposit from trespass by the vua vrzd of kgnw kgn: as in the case of trespass an offering is brought only for unwitting transgression, so also in the case of deposit.
^ˢnote:And say that wilful transgression is exempt.
^ᵗnote:And say that wilful transgression is liable.
^ᵘnote:In both, the word kgn is used.
^ᵛnote:In both, the word tyj, is used.
^ʷnote:In both, kgn is used.
^ˣnote:The laws of deposit and trespass are applicable to all people, whereas testimony is limited to those eligible to be witnesses.
^ʸnote:In the case of both deposit and trespass the transgressor derives enjoyment and benefit from his transgression (from the deposit or from the holy things), but in the case of testimony the witnesses derive no benefit by withholding testimony.
^ᶻnote:For deposit and trespass a fixed offering is brought, whereas for testimony a sliding scale sacrifice is brought. In the case of the first two also a fifth of the principal is imposed as a fine, and a guilt offering is brought, but not in the case of testimony. Therefore because deposit and trespass are equal in all these respects, we also equate deposit with trespass to exempt wilful transgression from an offering.
^ᵃᵃnote:In both deposit and testimony tyj, occurs.
^ᵃᵇnote:Deposit and testimony are both concerned with laymen, but not so trespass in holy things, where the Temple is the claimant.
^ᵃᶜnote:The transgression in the case of deposit and testimony is in respect of swearing falsely, but not so in the case of trespass.
^ᵃᵈnote:The transgression is the result of claim and denial.
^ᵃᵉnote:In both, ‘or . . . or’ occurs, which is not the case in trespass, v. supra p. 191.
^ᵃᶠnote:Deposit is like trespass in more respects than it is like testimony, six instead of five.
^ᵃᵍnote:For it is really more reasonable to deduce deposit from trespass, and therefore to exempt wilful transgression from an offering.
^ᵃʰnote:Be-rab; v. Sanh. (Sonc. ed.) p. 387, n. 7.
^ᵃⁱnote:Supra 34a; by the vua vrzd of tyj, tyj, that just as deposit deals only with money claims so testimony deals only with money claims.
^ᵃʲnote:Since he uses the vua vrzd to deduce testimony from deposit, let him use the same vua vrzd to deduce deposit from testimony for liability in the case of adjuration by others, and for wilful as for unwitting transgression.
^ᵃᵏnote:But agrees that deposit may be deduced from testimony to make him liable in the case of adjuration by others, and for wilful transgression.
^ᵃˡnote:Hence R. Simeon does not use the vua vrzd to deduce deposit from testimony; and that was the cause of the laughter.
^ᵃᵐnote:Even after he has established the vua vrzd of tyj, tyj, (testimony from deposit).
^ᵃⁿnote:After having established the vua vrzd, but deduces deposit from testimony that adjuration by others makes him liable. There is therefore no cause for laughter, for he likens deposit to trespass to exempt wilful transgression from an offering (for deposit is like trespass in more respects than it is like testimony); and he likens deposit to testimony (because he has a vua vrzd) to make him liable in the case of adjuration by others. (He cannot liken it to trespass in this respect, for there is no oath involved.)
^ᵃᵒnote:Since he has already deduced deposit from trespass that he is not liable for wilful transgression, and since he has a vua vrzd to equate testimony with deposit, let him say that in the case of testimony also he is not liable for wilful transgression; why does he say that in testimony wilful is like unwitting transgression? Hence the laughter.