Shevuot

to them: If he wilfully transgressed the oath of deposit, and [witnesses] warned him, what is the ruling?1 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;2 there is therefore no difference whether he is warned or not warned;3 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;4 for one is liable for its wilful transgression, stripes,5 and for its unwitting transgression, a guilt offering of [the value of] two silver shekels.6 Now, since it says: ‘for its wilful transgression, stripes,’ we deduce they warned him;7 and yet it says stripes only and not an offering!8 And wherein lies then the greater severity?9 [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;10 but according to the Rabbis, he brings an offering also.11 — R. Kahana said to them: Away with this [Baraitha];12 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?13 There14 [he may bring] a sin offering of the value of a danka,15 whereas here [he must bring] a guilt offering of the value of two shekels of silver. Let us then deduce from this!16 — Perhaps [it refers to the case where] they did not warn him.17 Another version.18 Come and hear: One is not liable for its unwitting transgression.19 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?20 — [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],21 it is because he receives stripes,22 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!23 — What is meant by ‘he does not receive stripes’ is that he is not freed by stripes.24 Do we infer then that a nazirite who had become unclean is freed by stripes?25 Surely an offering is [specifically] mentioned with reference to him!26 — There he brings an offering merely in order that his naziriteship should recommence in cleanliness.27 The Scholars told this to Rabbah.28 He said to them: Hence,29 if they did not warn him, though there are witnesses, he is liable,30 [but surely] it is [like] a merely [useless] denial of words!31 This32 shows that Rabbah [himself] holds, he who denies money for which there are witnesses, is exempt.33 R. Hanina said to Rabbah: There is [a Baraitha] taught in support of your view: And denieth it34 — except if he admits it to one of the brothers or one of the partners;35 and sweareth falsely34 — except if he borrowed on a bond or borrowed in the presence of witnesses!36 — 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.’37 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?38 But there is the denial of the other!39 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’;40 and this is simply a denial of words.41 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. 42 ) 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?43 — No! [It may mean] wilful transgression on his own account.44 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.45 Now granted, the second set should be liable, for the first set have denied;46 but the first set — why should they be liable? makes himself unclean, where an offering is brought far a wilful transgression, being one of them.] transgressed wilfully, for they can always say they forgot the testimony; v. Tosaf. a.l. brought. and in the case of oath of testimony an offering is brought, why is the oath of deposit said to be severer than the oath of testimony? according to the Sages it is possible that for wilful transgression of oath of deposit, with warning, an offering is also brought. view. stripes, but brings an offering. Kahana's question. warned, he brings an offering, although the witnesses may know that he has the deposit. claimed by another, he denies it; he is not, in such a case, liable to bring an offering for his false oath, because Scripture says: and denieth it, i.e., completely. Therefore, he does not bring an offering for his oath, because his denial is of no material consequence, but he who denies a money claim though there are witnesses would be liable to an offering. there are witnesses, he does not bring an offering.