Shevuot

or is he liable for each one?1 — Come and hear: R. Hiyya taught: Behold, there are here twenty sin offerings. How is this? If he expressed fully,2 [it is obvious;] does R. Hiyya come to tell us the number?3 Obviously therefore, he did not express fully;4 hence, we deduce from this that they are particulars.5 ‘THOU HAST VIOLATED OR SEDUCED MY DAUGHTER,’ etc. R. Hiyya b. Abba said that R. Johanan said: What is R. Simeon's reason?6 Because mainly it is the fine that he is claiming.7 Said Raba: In illustration of R. Simeon's view, to what may it be compared? To a man who said to his neighbour, ‘Give me the wheat, barley, and spelt that I have in thy possession,’ and he replied to him, ‘I swear that thou hast not in my possession wheat,’ and it was found that wheat he really did not have, but barley and spelt he had; he is exempt, for when he swore about the wheat, he swore the truth.8 Said Abaye to him: How can they be compared? There he denies the wheat, but does not deny the barley and spelt,9 but here, he denies the whole thing!10 But this then is to be compared only to one who says to his neighbour, ‘Give me the wheat, barley and spelt which I have in thy possession,’ [and the other replies,] ‘I swear that thou hast not anything in my possession,’ and it was found that wheat he really did not have, but barley and spelt he had; he is liable!11 — But when Rabin came [from Palestine] he said in the name of R. Johanan: According to R. Simeon, he is claiming the fine, and not for shame and blemish; according to the Sages, he is claiming also for shame and blemish. In what do they disagree? — R. Papa said: R. Simeon holds, a man does not leave that which is fixed12 to claim that which is not fixed;13 and the Rabbis hold, he does not leave that which, if he were to admit it, he would not be exempt,14 to claim that which, if he were to admit it, he would be exempt.15 MISHNAH. THE OATH OF THE JUDGES16 [IS IMPOSED WHEN] THE CLAIM IS [AT LEAST] TWO SILVER COINS,17 AND THE ADMISSION THE EQUIVALENT OF A PERUTAH.18 AND IF THE ADMISSION IS NOT OF THE SAME KIND AS THE CLAIM,19 HE IS EXEMPT.20 HOW? — ‘TWO SILVER MA'AHS21 OF MINE HAVE YOU IN YOUR POSSESSION,’ [AND THE OTHER REPLIES,] ‘I HAVE NOT IN MY POSSESSION OF YOURS EXCEPT A PERUTAH,’22 HE IS EXEMPT.23 — ‘TWO SILVER MA'AHS OF MINE AND A PERUTAH HAVE YOU IN YOUR POSSESSION,’ [AND THE OTHER REPLIES,] ‘I HAVE NOT IN MY POSSESSION OF YOURS EXCEPT A PERUTAH,’ HE IS LIABLE.24 — ‘YOU HAVE OF MINE A HUNDRED DENARII.’ — ‘I HAVE NOT OF YOURS,’ HE IS EXEMPT.25 — ‘YOU HAVE OF MINE A HUNDRED DENARII.’- ‘I HAVE OF YOURS ONLY FIFTY DENARII,’ HE IS LIABLE. — ‘YOU HAVE OF MY FATHER'S A HUNDRED DENARII.’26 — ‘I HAVE OF HIS ONLY FIFTY DENARII.’ HE IS EXEMPT, BECAUSE IT IS AS IF HE RESTORES A LOST OBJECT.27 ‘YOU HAVE OF MINE A HUNDRED DENARII.’ HE SAID TO HIM,28 ‘YES.’ ON THE MORROW HE SAID TO HIM, ‘GIVE THEM TO ME;’ [AND HE REPLIED,] ‘I HAVE GIVEN THEM TO YOU,’ HE IS EXEMPT. [IF HE SAYS,] ‘I HAVE NOT OF YOURS IN MY POSSESSION,’ HE IS LIABLE.29 — ‘YOU HAVE OF MINE A HUNDRED DENARII.’ HE SAID TO HIM, ‘YES. — GIVE THEM NOT TO ME EXCEPT BEFORE WITNESSES.’ ON THE MORROW HE SAID TO HIM, ‘GIVE THEM TO ME;’ [AND HE REPLIED,] ‘I HAVE GIVEN THEM TO YOU,’ HE IS LIABLE, BECAUSE HE SHOULD HAVE GIVEN THEM TO HIM BEFORE WITNESSES. — ‘YOU HAVE OF MINE A LITRA30 OF GOLD.’ — ‘I HAVE OF YOURS ONLY A LITRA OF SILVER,’ HE IS EXEMPT.31 — ‘YOU HAVE OF MINE A GOLDEN DENAR.’32 — ‘I HAVE OF YOURS ONLY A SILVER DENAR, OR A TRESIS,33 OR A PUNDION, OR A PERUTAH’; HE IS LIABLE, FOR ALL ARE ONE KIND OF COINAGE.34 — ‘YOU HAVE OF MINE A KOR35 OF GRAIN.’ — ‘I HAVE OF YOURS ONLY A LETHEK OF BEANS;’ HE IS EXEMPT; ‘YOU HAVE OF MINE A KOR OF PRODUCE.’ — ‘I HAVE OF YOURS ONLY A LETHEK OF BEANS;’ HE IS LIABLE, FOR BEANS ARE INCLUDED IN PRODUCE. IF HE CLAIMED FROM HIM WHEAT, AND THE OTHER ADMITTED BARLEY, HE IS EXEMPT; BUT R. GAMALIEL MAKES HIM LIABLE.36 IF HE CLAIMS FROM HIS NEIGHBOUR JARS OF OIL, AND HE ADMITS [HIS CLAIM TO THE EMPTY] JARS, ADMON SAYS, SINCE HE ADMITS TO HIM A PORTION OF THE SAME KIND AS THE CLAIM, HE MUST SWEAR. BUT THE SAGES SAY, THE ADMISSION IS NOT OF THE SAME KIND AS THE CLAIM.37 R. GAMALIEL SAID, I APPROVE THE WORDS OF ADMON. IF HE CLAIMS FROM HIM VESSELS AND LANDS, AND HE ADMITS THE VESSELS, BUT DENIES THE LANDS; OR ADMITS THE LANDS, BUT DENIES THE VESSELS, HE IS EXEMPT.38 IF HE ADMITS A PORTION OF THE LANDS, HE IS EXEMPT; A PORTION OF THE VESSELS, HE IS LIABLE;39 BECAUSE PROPERTIES FOR WHICH THERE IS NO SECURITY40 BIND PROPERTIES FOR WHICH THERE IS SECURITY41 TO TAKE AN OATH FOR THEM. NO OATH IS IMPOSED IN A CLAIM BY A DEAF-MUTE, IMBECILE, OR MINOR. AND NO OATH IS IMPOSED ON A MINOR; BUT AN OATH IS IMPOSED WHEN A CLAIM IS LODGED AGAINST A MINOR, OR AGAINST THE TEMPLE.42 GEMARA. How do we impose the oath on him? — Rab Judah said that Rab said: We adjure him with the oath that is stated in the Torah, as it is written, And I will make thee swear by the Lord, the God of heaven.43 Said Rabina to R. Ashi: In accordance with whose view [is this]? In accordance with the view of R. Hanina b. Idi, who says we require the Distinguishing Name!44 — He said to him: You may even say it is in accordance with the view of the Rabbis, who say [he may be adjured] with a Substitute [for the Name];45 but the outcome is that he must hold something [sacred] in his hand;46 and as Raba said, for Raba said: A judge who adjures by ‘the Lord God of heaven’ [without handing a sacred object to the person taking the oath] is counted as having erred in the ruling of a Mishnah,47 and must repeat [the ceremony correctly].48 And R. Papa said: A judge who adjures with tefillin49 is counted as having erred in the ruling of a Mishnah, and must repeat [the ceremony].50 The law is in accordance with the view of Raba,51 and the law is not in accordance with the view of R. Papa.52 The law is in accordance with the view of Raba, for he did not hold any [sacred] object in his hand; but the law is not in accordance with the view of R. Papa, for he held a [sacred] object in his hand. The oath [must be taken] standing; a disciple of the wise [may take it] sitting. The oath must be administered with a Sefer Torah,53 a disciple of the wise may directly take it with tefillin. 54 Our Sages taught: [As to] the oath of the judges — it also may be said in any language. They say to him: Know particulars to each claimant. possession,’ he refers to the particulars already enumerated to the first claimant; and therefore he is liable to 20 offerings. liability for ‘shame and blemish’ (which are iunn), the father of the girl is concerned mainly with obtaining the 50 shekels. the fine; and for denying a fine, he is not liable for an offering. perutah = about 1/16 d. admission a copper coin, he is liable; for they are both coins. witnesses his liability. (infra 42b); if he admits the land, but denies the vessels, there is no oath, for there is no admission of a portion of the vessels; and since he denies all (kfv rpuf) he is free from an oath. that a Sefer Torah (Scroll of the Law) or Tefillin (phylacteries) must be held by the person taking the oath. Sanh. 33a. of his mistake, and pay the amount denied by the debtor on this incorrectly administered oath. instance vkj,fk.