to them: If he wilfully transgressed the oath of deposit, and [witnesses] warned him, what is the ruling? Since it presents an anomaly in that in the whole Torah we do not find that a wilful transgressor brings an offering, and here he brings an offering; there is therefore no difference whether he is warned or not warned; or, it applies only when he is not warned; but when he is warned, he receives stripes, and does not bring an offering; or, do we impose both [punishments] on him? — They said to him: We have it stated [in a Baraitha]: The oath of deposit is more severe than it; for one is liable for its wilful transgression, stripes, and for its unwitting transgression, a guilt offering of [the value of] two silver shekels. Now, since it says: ‘for its wilful transgression, stripes,’ we deduce they warned him; and yet it says stripes only and not an offering! And wherein lies then the greater severity? [In that] a man prefers to bring an offering rather than suffer stripes. Said Raba b. Ithi to them: [No! this affords no solution, for] who is the Tanna [who holds that] wilful transgression of oath of deposit is not atoned for by an offering? It is R. Simeon; but according to the Rabbis, he brings an offering also. — R. Kahana said to them: Away with this [Baraitha]; for I learnt it, and thus l learnt it: Both for its wilful and unwitting transgression [the penalty is] a guilt offering of [the value of] two silver shekels. And wherein lies its greater severity? There [he may bring] a sin offering of the value of a danka, whereas here [he must bring] a guilt offering of the value of two shekels of silver. Let us then deduce from this! — Perhaps [it refers to the case where] they did not warn him. Another version. Come and hear: One is not liable for its unwitting transgression. To what is one liable for its wilful transgression? A guilt offering of [the value of] two shekels of silver. Now does this not refer to the case where they warned him? — [No!] Here also it may refer to the case where they did not warn him. Come and hear: No! If you say in the case of a nazirite who had become unclean [that such and such is the case], it is because he receives stripes, but how can you say in the case of the oath of deposit [that such and such is the case], since its transgressor does not receive stripes? Since it says, ‘he receives stripes,’ we deduce that they warned him; and it says, ‘how can you say in the case of the oath of deposit [that such and such is the case], since its transgressor does not receive stripes?’ — but [presumably] an offering he brings! — What is meant by ‘he does not receive stripes’ is that he is not freed by stripes. Do we infer then that a nazirite who had become unclean is freed by stripes? Surely an offering is [specifically] mentioned with reference to him! — There he brings an offering merely in order that his naziriteship should recommence in cleanliness. The Scholars told this to Rabbah. He said to them: Hence, if they did not warn him, though there are witnesses, he is liable, [but surely] it is [like] a merely [useless] denial of words! This shows that Rabbah [himself] holds, he who denies money for which there are witnesses, is exempt. R. Hanina said to Rabbah: There is [a Baraitha] taught in support of your view: And denieth it — except if he admits it to one of the brothers or one of the partners; and sweareth falsely — except if he borrowed on a bond or borrowed in the presence of witnesses! — He said to him: From this you can bring no support to my view. [It refers to a case where] he says, ‘I borrowed, but I did not borrow in the presence of witnesses’; ‘I borrowed, but I did not borrow on a bond.’ How [do we know it refers to such a case]? Because it states: ‘and denieth it — except if he admits it to one of the brothers or one of the partners.’ [Now,] ‘to one of the brothers’ — what does it mean? Shall we say [it means] he admits his half? But there is the denial of the other! Obviously then, it means, they say to him: ‘From both of us you borrowed,’ and he replies to them: ‘No! From one of you I borrowed’; and this is simply a denial of words. And since the first clause refers to a denial of words, the second clause also refers to a denial of words. (Mnemonic: Liable, sets [of witnesses], of the trustee, the severity, of the nazirite. ) Come and hear: He is not liable for its unwitting transgression; and to what is he liable for its wilful transgression? A guilt offering of [the value of] two silver shekels. Does it not mean wilful transgression [after warning by] witnesses? — No! [It may mean] wilful transgression on his own account. Come and hear: If there were two sets of witnesses, and the first denied, and then the second denied, they are both liable, because the testimony could be upheld by [either of] the two. Now granted, the second set should be liable, for the first set have denied; but the first set — why should they be liable?ᵃᵇᶜᵈᵉᶠᵍʰⁱʲᵏˡᵐⁿᵒᵖᵠʳˢᵗᵘᵛʷˣʸᶻᵃᵃᵃᵇᵃᶜᵃᵈᵃᵉᵃᶠᵃᵍᵃʰᵃⁱᵃʲᵃᵏᵃˡᵃᵐᵃⁿᵃᵒᵃᵖᵃᵠᵃʳᵃˢᵃᵗ