Talmud zu Wajikra 5:1

MISHNAH: An oath about testimony¹Lev. 5:1 requires a variable value sacrifice by a person who heard an imprecation when he had knowledge and refuses to testify. This is read to mean that a person is approached by a party in a civil suit and asked to testify in their behalf. If then either he swears an oath that he will testify in court (“by his own word”) or the party asks him to swear that he will appear (“by the word of others”) while he answers “Amen” but does not utter an oath by himself, he becomes liable for the sacrifice if he reneges on his commitment. applies to men but not to women²Since women are not admitted as formal witnesses in court, the rule of an oath of testimony cannot apply to them., to unrelated persons but not to relatives³Since relatives are barred from appearing as witnesses in court, the rule of an oath of testimony cannot apply to them., to qualified but not to disqualified ones⁴Felons are not permitted to appear as witnesses in court; the rule of an oath of testimony cannot apply to them.; it applies only to those admitted to testify⁵Even if their disability only is a rabbinic tradition they will not be heard and the rule of an oath of testimony cannot apply to them., in court and out of court, and by the person’s own words. By the words of others they only become liable if they renege before a court, the words of Rebbi Meїr. But the Sages say, whether by the person’s own words or by the words of others they only become liable if they renege before a court⁶Since testimony is used only in court, a refusal to testify outside of court is irrelevant and cannot trigger liability..
They are liable both for intentional [violation of the] oath and for erroneous one²⁷If he swore falsely that he did not know testimony but did not know that this makes him liable for a sacrifice., and for intentional [refusal of] testimony, but one is not liable unintentionally²⁸If honestly he was erroneously thinking that he did not know testimony.. What is one liable for if intentional? A variable value sacrifice.

HALAKHAH: “An oath about a deposit,” etc. ⁴For this and part of the next Halakhah there exists a rudimentary Genizah fragment edited by L. Ginzberg, Yerushalmi Fragments, New York 1909, pp. 285–286 (G). It was stated: Is an oath in his own formulation of an oath of testimony like an imprecation; in his own words is an oath about a deposit like an imprecation⁵It was established in 4:14 (Note 119) that for requests of testimony imprecations without oaths and oaths without imprecations trigger liabilities for a sacrifice. As noted before, the natural setting of an oath or imprecation for testimony is one formulated by the claimant; for oaths about deposits it is one formulated by the defendant. No imprecations are mentioned in connection with oaths about deposits. The unresolved questions are whether an imprecation formulated by the potential witness triggers liability and what the status is of an imprecation substituting for an oath is a case of disputed monetary claim?? Rebbi Yose said, since it is written “a person, a person⁶Lev. 5:1; cf. Chapter 4:3 Note 31.”, everything is here and everything is there. Rebbi Mana said, an imprecation made in court is the topic of disagreement between Rebbi Meїr and the Sages⁷Not only oaths; Mishnah 4:1.. ⁸The following is also quoted by Alfassi (Shevuot Chapter 5) and is the subject of extensive commentaries by Nachmanides, R. Nissim Gerondi, and Rosh. Cf. Babli 36a.He lied to his fellow man⁹Lev. 5:21., if his confession was eliminated by the oath¹⁰Liability for a sacrifice is created only if the false oath saves the defendant from a sentence which would obligate him to pay the claimant. Cf. S. Liebermann, Review of S. Asaph מספרות הגאונים, Tarbiz 5(1934) pp. 395–400.. It excludes one who lied to one of partners; it excludes one who lied where there are witnesses and a document¹¹Swearing falsely to only one of the partners has no monetary consequences as long as the defendant did not also lie to the other partners. Swearing falsely about an obligation which can be proven by witnesses or documents is pointless.. Rebbi Yose said, this implies that if two people took a loan from one person, even if they did not write “we are responsible and warrantors for one another”, they are responsible and warrantors for one another; but one does not act on this¹²The implication that rules governing one debtor and two creditors can be applied to one creditor and two debtors is not found in the Babli but accepted by Rif (§1043) and all subsequent codifiers; the note that one does not act on this, but writes joint liabilities in all contracts, was not accepted by Rif and his successor Josef ibn Migash (cf. I. Tashma and H. Ben Shammai, Kobez al Yad 8(18) Jerusalem 1975 p. 179 Note 10).. If two made a joint deposit and one came to retrieve his property, one does not listen to him¹³Without explicit authorization by one of the depositors to the trustee, a joint deposit may be returned only to the joint depositors.. Should he not be treated as denying his part and be liable? If one made a deposit with two people. If one denied it, he is liable. If the other denied it, he is liable¹⁴If both trustees denied the existence of the deposit at different times, both are liable.. If the deposit was worth one peruṭa, does this not result in each of them bringing a sacrifice for half a peruṭa¹⁵A peruṭa (a Hasmonean coin of about 2g bronze) is the smallest amount for which one may go to court. (Half- peruṭa coins have been found.) Since a half-peruṭa cannot be the subject of a law suit, it cannot be the cause of liability for any kind of oath. Should not the sacrifice for an oath about a half-peruṭa be forbidden as false dedication?? What here? If one would swear, and swear, and swear, would he not bring a sacrifice for half a peruṭa¹⁶Since he has to bring three sacrifices for oaths about one peruṭa, each one is for a third of a peruṭa.? There, each oath refers to a peruṭa’s worth. Here no oath refers to a peruṭa’s worth¹⁷The previous argument is wrong. Multiple infractions all concerning the same peruṭa need separate atoning. A deposit given to two people jointly must be at least two peruṭas worth to trigger liabilities for sacrifices..

“To qualified but not to disqualified ones.” For it is said, if he does not tell, he has to bear his punishment^21aLev. 5:1. If he told, the other would have to pay money. This excludes one where the other would not have to pay money even if he told.