Shevuot

and witnesses had been watching him from outside,1 what [is the ruling]? — R. Hamnuna said to him: And what does that one2 plead? If he says, ‘The thing never occurred’, he is proven a liar.3 If he says, ‘Yes, I took [the money], but it was my own that I took’, if witnesses come, what happens?4 — He said to him: ‘Hamnuna, you come and go in’.5 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!6 Did he then say ‘never’?7 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 man8 he will do without being conscious of it.9 ‘R. Simeon said: He is liable here, and he is liable in [the case of] deposit, etc.’10 They laughed at it in the West.11 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]?12 Because he deduces it from deposit;13 then let him also in [the case of] deposit deduce adjuration by others from testimony.14 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?15 — 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. Here16 also it is not written, and it be hidden.17 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].18 — This then is the very reason for the laughter: why does he deduce it from trespass?19 Let him rather deduce it from testimony!20 — It is more reasonable that he should deduce it from trespass, because it is ‘trespass’ from ‘trespass’!21 On the contrary, he should deduce it from testimony, because it is ‘sin’ from ‘sin’.22 It is more reasonable that he should deduce it from trespass, because [they are both equal in respect of] ‘trespass’,23 all,24 enjoyment,25 fixed offering,26 fifth, and guilt offering. On the contrary, he should deduce it from testimony, because [they are both equal in respect of] ‘sin’,27 layman,28 oath,29 claim and denial,30 and ‘or . . . or’!31 — The others are more.32 Well then, why the laughter?33 — When R. Papa and R. Huna the son of R. Joshua came from the Academy,34 they said this is the reason for the laughter: Behold R. Simeon deduces by analogy [testimony from deposit].35 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.’36 But why the laughter? Perhaps he argued thus before he established the analogy, but after he established the analogy he does not argue thus.37 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!38 — Perhaps he argues that wilful transgression [is not] like unwitting [in the case of deposit], because he deduces it from trespass39 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.40 — 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! 41 — loan. testimony from deposit by analogy of phrases: tyj, tyj,. This was the cause of the laughter. 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. not say this, they laughed. 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. witnesses. the deposit or from the holy things), but in the case of testimony the witnesses derive no benefit by withholding testimony. 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. claimant. trespass. an offering. testimony deals only with money claims. deposit from testimony for liability in the case of adjuration by others, and for wilful as for unwitting transgression. for wilful transgression. laughter. 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.) 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.