Shevuot

‘IT DIED,’ WHEREAS IT WAS INJURED OR CAPTURED OR STOLEN OR LOST; [OR HE REPLIED,] ‘IT WAS INJURED,’ WHEREAS IT DIED OR WAS CAPTURED OR STOLEN OR LOST; [OR HE REPLIED,] ‘IT WAS CAPTURED, WHEREAS IT DIED OR WAS INJURED OR STOLEN OR LOST; [OR HE REPLIED,] ‘IT WAS STOLEN, WHEREAS IT DIED OR WAS INJURED OR CAPTURED OR LOST; [OR HE REPLIED,] ‘IT WAS LOST, WHEREAS IT DIED OR WAS INJURED OR CAPTURED OR STOLEN; [AND THE OWNER SAID,] ‘I ADJURE YOU,’ AND HE SAID, ‘AMEN,’ HE IS EXEMPT.1 [IF THE OWNER SAID,] ‘WHERE IS MY OX?’ AND HE REPLIED TO HIM, ‘I DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU SAY,’ WHEREAS IT DIED OR WAS INJURED OR CAPTURED OR STOLEN OR LOST; [AND THE OWNER SAID,] ‘I ADJURE YOU,’ AND HE SAID, ‘AMEN,’ HE IS LIABLE.2 IF HE SAID TO A PAID GUARDIAN, OR HIRER. ‘WHERE IS MY OX?’ AND HE REPLIED TO HIM, ‘IT DIED,’ WHEREAS IT WAS INJURED OR CAPTURED; [OR HE REPLIED,] ‘IT WAS INJURED,’ WHEREAS IT DIED OR WAS CAPTURED; [OR HE REPLIED,] ‘IT WAS CAPTURED,’ WHEREAS IT DIED OR WAS INJURED;3 [OR HE REPLIED,] ‘IT WAS STOLEN, WHEREAS IT WAS LOST; [OR HE REPLIED,] ‘IT WAS LOST,’ WHEREAS IT WAS STOLEN;4 [AND THE OWNER SAID,] ‘I ADJURE YOU,’ AND HE SAID, ‘AMEN,’ HE IS EXEMPT. [IF HE REPLIED,] ‘IT DIED,’ OR, ‘IT WAS INJURED,’ OR, ‘IT WAS CAPTURED,’ WHEREAS IT WAS STOLEN OR LOST; [AND THE OWNER SAID,] ‘I ADJURE YOU.’ AND HE SAID, ‘AMEN,’ HE IS LIABLE.5 [IF HE REPLIED,] ‘IT WAS LOST,’ OR, ‘IT WAS STOLEN,’ WHEREAS IT DIED OR WAS INJURED OR CAPTURED; [AND THE OWNER SAID,] ‘I ADJURE YOU,’ AND HE SAID, ‘AMEN,’ HE IS EXEMPT.6 THIS IS THE PRINCIPLE: HE WHO [BY LYING] CHANGES FROM LIABILITY TO LIABILITY. OR FROM EXEMPTION TO EXEMPTION, OR FROM EXEMPTION TO LIABILITY, IS EXEMPT;7 FROM LIABILITY TO EXEMPTION, IS LIABLE. THIS IS THE PRINCIPLE: HE WHO TAKES AN OATH TO MAKE IT MORE LENIENT FOR HIMSELF, IS LIABLE; TO MAKE IT MORE STRINGENT FOR HIMSELF, IS EXEMPT.8 GEMARA. Who is the Tanna who holds that there are four guardians? — R. Nahman said that Rabbah b. Abbuha said: It is R. Meir. Said Raba to R. Nahman: Is there then a tanna who does not hold that there are four guardians!9 — He said to him: Thus I meant to say to you: Who is the tanna who holds that a hirer is like a paid guardian? Rabbah b. Abbuha said: It is R. Meir. But surely, we have heard that R. Meir holds the reverse [view], for we learnt: A hirer: how does he pay? R. Meir said: Like an unpaid guardian; R. Judah said: Like a paid guardian! — Rabbah b. Abbuha learned it reversed.10 Are they four? They are three!11 — R. Nahman b. Isaac said: There are four guardians, but their regulations are three. IF HE SAID TO AN UNPAID GUARDIAN, etc. ‘WHERE IS MY OX?’ etc. IF HE SAID TO ONE IN THE STREET, etc. IF HE SAID TO A GUARDIAN,12 etc. WHERE IS MY OX?’ HE REPLIED TO HIM, ‘I DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU SAY,’ etc. Rab said: They are all exempt from the oath of guardians,13 but are liable in respect of the oath of utterance;14 and Samuel said: They are exempt also in respect of the oath of utterance. In what do they disagree? — Samuel holds it is not [possible of application] in the future;15 and Rab holds it is [possible of application] both negatively and positively.16 But they have already expressed their disagreement on this point once, for it was stated: ‘I swear that So-and-so threw a pebble into the sea,’ ‘I swear that he did not throw [a pebble into the sea]’; Rab says, he is liable, and Samuel says, he is exempt. Rab says, he is liable, because it is [applicable] negatively and positively; and Samuel says, he is exempt, because it is not [applicable] in the future!17 — It is necessary [for them to express their disagreement in the present instance too], for if they had told us [their disagreement] in that case, [we might have thought that] in that case Rab says [he is liable], because he swears of his own accord, but in this case, where the Court administer the oath to him,18 we might have thought that he agrees with Samuel;19 as R. Ammi said, for R. Ammi said: In any oath which the Judges administer there is no liability in respect of the oath of utterance. And if [their disagreement] had been stated in this case, [we might have thought that] in this case Samuel says [he is exempt].20 but in that case we might have thought that he agrees with Rab,21 therefore it is necessary [for their disagreement to be stated in both cases]. [To turn to the main] text: R. Ammi said: In any oath which the Judges administer there is no liability in respect of the oath of utterance, for it is said: Or if any one swear, uttering with the lips22 — of his own accord; as Resh Lakish said, for Resh Lakish said: ki is translatable by four expressions: ‘if’, ‘perhaps’, ‘but’, ‘because’. 23 R. Eleazar says: They are all exempt from the oath of guardians, but are liable in respect of the oath of utterance,24 except [in the case of the statement], ‘I DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU SAY, [made] by the borrower, and that of theft and loss, by the paid guardian and hirer, where they are liable,25 for they denied money. accordance with his oath, he would still have had to pay. for even if they had admitted the truth they would not have had to pay. and are therefore exempt from a guilt-offering. brings a guilt-offering. he is therefore exempt from a guilt-offering. contradiction to the preceding passage, which extends the exemption to one who effects no change by his lying, whereas here the exemption is limited to one who makes it more stringent for himself.] i.e., are exempt from a guilt-offering for their false oath of deposit. nevertheless uttered a false oath, and must bring a sliding scale sacrifice. This sacrifice is brought, however, only if the transgressor trespassed unwittingly in that he was unaware that a sacrifice was necessary for a false oath, though he knew a false oath was prohibited, and that he was swearing falsely; for if he swore falsely unwittingly (i.e., if he really thought he was swearing the truth), he would in any case be exempt from a guilt-offering for his false oath of deposit; v. supra 36b. future; e.g., if the guardian swore falsely, ‘The animal died,’ he does not bring a sliding scale sacrifice, for he could not swear, ‘The animal will die’; v. supra 25a. died, or did not die; was stolen, or was not stolen. oath that he was not wilfully neglectful; if a paid guardian, he takes an oath that the animal died, or was forcibly taken from him by robbers, or injured. own free will. he need not swear, but if he does swear, he must bring a sliding scale sacrifice. Rab, however, takes ki here as meaning ‘because’: because he swears (whether of his own accord, or compelled by the court), he must bring a sacrifice. the case of an unpaid guardian who, after swearing that the animal was lost or stolen, confessed that he stole it himself, in which case he is exempted from a sliding scale sacrifice, for the Mishnah states clearly that he brings a guilt-offering; and it is obvious that he is therefore exempt from the sacrifice for the oath of utterance.