Talmud su Levitico 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.

“Before the court.” To exclude a single witness. If they told him that they would accept his word as if there were two witnesses, from where? The verse says, if he was a witness, had seen or known; if he does not tell he shall bear his punishment^21aLev. 5:1. One who is qualified to testify according to biblical standards; this excludes a single witness who is not qualified to testify.

MISHNAH: What is an oath about testimony? One said to witnesses, come and testify for me. “An oath that we do not know testimony for you;” or they said to him, we do not know any testimony for you, “I am asking you to take an oath upon this;” if they said “Amen”, they are liable¹Lev. 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.. If he asked them five times outside of court to take an oath; when they came to court and admitted it they are not liable²⁹Since refusal of testimony outside of court is irrelevant (Note 6).. If they deny, they are liable for each single one. If he asked them five times in court to take an oath and the refused, they are liable only once. Rebbi Simeon said, what is the reason? Because they cannot come back and admit³⁰Since the courts operate on the principle that a witness can testify only once, i. e., he cannot change his testimony, after a first refusal in court the witness would not be permitted to change his statement. The additional oaths put on the witnesses are pointless; the court should prohibit them. In the language of the Babli, כֵּיוָן שֶׁהִגִּיד אֵינוֹ חוֹזֵר וּמַגִּיד “after he told, he does not return to tell”..

Rebbi Jeremiah asked: If he made him swear five times in his own words and let him swear five times by the mouth of others, what³⁷Again this is a question following R. Meїr. It is clear that the demand that they answer to an oath formulated by the person who wants to force testimony must be made in court. Therefore, one has to assume that the first five oaths were made outside of court. Then they are not subject to the rule that there can be only one testimony. The next question is about the status of an oath of denial of knowledge before the other even had asked for their testimony.? Since Rebbi Meїr considered “in his own words” as if in court, would they determine the sacrifice on the first occasion, even without request? It should come like the following:³⁸Cf. Tosephta 2:11 (Babli 31b). The baraita is formulated independently from the Babylonian Tosephta. “Why do you go after us? An oath that we do not know any testimony relevant for you. Should they be liable? The verse says, and he heard the voice of an imprecation³⁹Lev. 5:1.. Only one who hears an imprecation⁴⁰The Tosephta states clearly, “they are not liable unless he requested [the testimony]”.. This excludes those who did not hear a voice.” Would he be liable from his own mouth for real estate⁴¹All examples in Lev. 5:21–22 (a deposit, a loan, extortion and robbery, a find) refer to monetary claims about movables. Since there can be no sacrifice for an oath about deposits relating to real estate, one might argue that there can be no sacrifice for an oath about testimony involving real estate, asserted in Tosephta 4:1.? From his own mouth would he be liable for fines⁴²These fines are biblically imposed for misdeeds. Whether there can be an oath about these is in dispute between the majority and R. Simeon, Mishnah 5:6.? From his own mouth would he be liable for a variable value sacrifice⁴³From the equal cut (Note 32) we know that for a false oath regarding testimony formulated by the potential witness he is liable for a sacrifice. Is that the variable value sacrifice for a false oath regarding testimony or a fixed value sacrifice required for a false testimony about deposits??

HALAKHAH: “I am putting an oath on you that you should come and testify for me,” etc. ⁵⁷Babli 33b, Sifra Ḥova (Wayyiqra 2) Parashah 8(8–10). From where that this only refers to monetary claims? Rebbi Eliezer said, it uses here “or” and it uses “or” with a deposit⁵⁸In Lev. 5:1, “or” is used twice, in vv. 21–22 four times.. Since the “or” used with a deposit only refers to monetary claims, also the “or” used here only refers to monetary claims. The “or” of the homicide will disprove⁵⁹Num. 35:22–23, in the description of accidental homicide, “or” is used twice. since they do not refer to monetary claims. One argues about “or” accompanied by an oath from “or” accompanied by an oath; the “or” of the homicide cannot disprove since they are not accompanied by an oath. The “or” of the deviant woman will disprove⁶⁰Num. 5:14, the presumption of innocence of the deviant woman is introduced by “or”. The imprecation is not the woman’s but the Cohen’s, v. 19. since they are accompanied by an oath and do not refer to monetary claims. One argues about “or” accompanied by an oath not accompanied by a Cohen from similar “or”; the “or” of the deviant woman cannot disprove since they are accompanied by a Cohen. The “or” of blurting lips will disprove⁶¹Lev. 5:4, “or” is used twice. since they do not refer to monetary claims. One argues about “or” where He made intent equal to error⁶²As explained in the preceding Chapters, blurted oaths create a liability for a sacrifice only if they were broken in a period of forgetting, i. e., unintention- ally. There is no mention of unintentional sin for liability in cases of oath about testimony or monetary damages. from similar “or”; the “or” of blurting lips cannot disprove since there He did not make intent equal to error. Rebbi Aqiba says, for some of these one is liable, for some one is not liable. For monetary claims one is liable; for non-monetary claims one is not liable⁶³He refers to Lev. 5:5: It shall be if he causes damage by some of these; some will require a sacrifice but not others. The decision what to include is left to the religious authorities guided by the hermeneutical principle of “equal cut”. Babli 33b, Sifra Ḥova (Wayyiqra 2) Pereq 17(1).. Rebbi Simeon says, He made liable here and he made liable for a deposit. Since deposits only refer to monetary claims, so here also it only refers to monetary claims^41,All examples in Lev. 5:21–22 (a deposit, a loan, extortion and robbery, a find) refer to monetary claims about movables. Since there can be no sacrifice for an oath about deposits relating to real estate, one might argue that there can be no sacrifice for an oath about testimony involving real estate, asserted in Tosephta 4:1.⁶⁴Babli 33b, Sifra Ḥova (Wayyiqra 2) Pereq 17(2)..

HALAKHAH: “I am putting an oath on you,” etc. ⁶⁶Babli 33b, Sifra Ḥova (Wayyiqra 2) Pereq 17(1). It was stated: Rebbi Yose the Galilean says, why does the verse say, and he is a witness, or saw, or knew⁶⁷Lev. 5:1., etc.? I said this only for testimony which may be accepted about knowing without seeing, or seeing without knowing. ⁶⁸Babli 33b, Tosephta 2:5. How is knowing without seeing in monetary claims? “Give me my 200 zuz which you are holding.” “I do not have anything of yours.” “But did you not confess before X and Y”? “They should testify and I shall pay.” This refers to knowing without seeing. They came and said, whether he confessed to him or whether he robbed him, we do not know. Whether he gave him a loan we do not know⁶⁹The witnesses came and testified that they saw a transaction but they have no knowledge about the kind of transaction it was. Had the debtor not said that he would pay if the witnesses came, that testimony would be worthless, but now he has to pay. The Babli assumes that the testimony is without a disclaimer.. How is seeing without knowing in monetary claims? “Give me my 200 zuz which you are holding.” “I do not have anything of yours.” “But did I not count them for you in a meeting with X and Y”? “They should testify and I shall pay.” This refers to seeing without knowing. They came and said, whether he counted for him or whether he robbed him, we do not know. Whether he took a loan from him, we do not know. “Give me the fine for my daughter which you owe me⁷⁰The biblical fines for seducing a virgin (Ex. 22:16) or raping her (Deut. 22:29)..” But he says, “I never in my life was found liable for a fine.” Witnesses testify that he was found liable for a fine⁷¹Since he is found in court to be a liar he is barred from swearing to clear himself from the claim. Therefore even a weak testimony will buttress the claim against him., but we do not know whether the fine was for his daughter or the fine for another woman. “You raped or you seduced my daughter.” But he says, “I never in my life did rape or seduce a woman.” Witnesses testify that he raped a woman⁷¹Since he is found in court to be a liar he is barred from swearing to clear himself from the claim. Therefore even a weak testimony will buttress the claim against him., but we do not know whether it was his daughter or another woman. “You killed my ox and cut down my orchard.” But he says, “I do not know.” He is liable⁷²In the Babli, e. g., Ketubot 12b, בָּרִי וְשֶׁמָּא בָּרִי עָדיף “between certain and perhaps, certain is preferred.” If a claim is asserted as certain but the defense is that possibly it is false, there is no defense.. “You told me to kill and cut down,” one follows the majority of orchards. What means, one follows the majority of orchards? Rebbi Ḥaggai said, if his ox was goring, he would have told him; if the orchard was barren, he would have told him⁷³Babli Bava qamma 91b.. Rebbi Yudan said, in matters of monetary claims, since he may tell him, you told me to kill and cut down, even if he told him “I did not kill, I did not cut down,” he is not liable⁷⁴Since the burden of proof is on the claimant..

MISHNAH: How does one instill fear in witnesses in criminal cases⁹⁵A criminal trial is one where the punishment is either death or flogging. Flogging is potentially life-threatening. A crime for which the punishment is a fine is tried as civil infraction under the rules of civil suits.? One brings them in and instills fear in them. Maybe you would testify by a guess, or by a rumor, or from the mouth of a witness, or you heard it from a trustworthy source⁹⁶This still is hearsay evidence which is inadmissible., or maybe you do not know that we shall examine you by cross-examination and interrogation¹Cross-examination is the interrogation of witnesses which changes from trial to trial. Investigation is the determination of answers to the obligatory questions enumerated in Mishnah 5:1.. You should know that criminal trials are not like civil trials. In civil trials a person⁹⁷On whose incorrect testimony another person was found owing money. pays money and is forgiven. In criminal trials, his blood and the blood of all his descendants hang in the balance, to the end of all generations. So we find when Cain slew his brother, it is said: The sounds of your brother’s bloods cry to me from the earth⁹⁸Gen. 4:10; cf. Gen. rabba 22(21).. It does not say your brother’s blood but your brother’s bloods, his blood and that of his descendants. Another explanation⁹⁹This is a possible correct interpretation of the verse, not to be used as sermon in court. Cf. Gen. rabba 22(22).: Your brother’s bloods, the blood was splashed on trees and stones.
Therefore man was created single in the world to teach that for anybody who destroys a single life it is counted as if he destroyed an entire world, and for anybody who preserves a single life it is counted as if he preserved an entire world. And because of peace among men, that nobody could say to another, my father was greater than your father. And that sectarians¹⁰⁴In general, מין denotes a Jewish Christian. If Jesus was identical in nature with God, he could not have been created or born. If Jesus was similar in nature to God, his creation would contradict the thesis of unique creation of man. If Jesus was simply referring to himself as God’s son in the meaning of Deut. 11:1, he is no power in Heaven. could not say, there are a plurality of powers in Heaven.
And to proclaim the greatness of the King over kings of kings, the Holy One, praise to Him. For a man coins many coins with one die; they are one like the other. But the King over kings of kings, the Holy One, praise to Him, stamps every man with the stamp of the first man, but no one is like any other. Therefore, everybody is required to say, the world was created for me.
Maybe you will say, why should we go to all this trouble? There already is written: If he is a witness, or saw, or knew¹¹²Lev. 5:1. As usual, the implication is from the part of the verse which is not quoted: If he do not tell, he has to bear his sin., etc. Maybe you will say, why should we be guilty of this man’s blood? There already is written: In destruction of evildoers is clamor¹¹³Prov. 11:10..

Rebbi Ismael stated: He has to bear his punishment¹⁹³Lev. 5:1., a sacrifice¹⁹⁴This supports Rav, that a sacrifice is due for any untruthful oath.. From where that one needs a court¹⁹⁵That a sacrifice is required only for oaths connected with judicial proceedings.? One learns “telling, telling¹⁹⁶The only legal texts in the Pentateuch which use the root נגד are Lev. 5:1 and Deut. 17:9–11. The latter text contains the rules of the Supreme Court and the punishment for disobeying its rulings.”. Since telling mentioned there is before a court, also telling here is before a court.

Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Meïr is the one who says that out of a negative one understands a positive¹¹⁸This is the position of the Yerushalmi here and in 7:1 (Note 11), Eruvin 3 (21b l. 24), Qiddušin 3:4 Note 136, Nedarim1:4 Note 158. (The explanation given there that the statement of R. Yasa in the name of R. Joḥanan is a rhetorical question is incorrect; the statement is a straightforward declarative sentence.) The Babli (36a, Nedarim 11a,13b, Soṭah 17a) is totally opposed; it proposes to switch the attributions in the Mishnah between R. Meїr and the Sages.. “May He not punish you if you come and testify for me.” Therefore, if you do not come and testify for me He shall punish you. There is not only an imprecation accompanied by an oath. From where one not accompanied by an oath be like one which is accompanied by an oath? The verse says, and heard an imprecation, and heard a voice¹¹⁹Lev. 5:1., to make one without imprecation like one with an imprecation. Therefore not an imprecation without an oath. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: There is no difference; an imprecation without oath is the same as an oath without an imprecation¹²⁰Babli 36a, Sifra Ḥova (Wayyiqra 2) Parashah 8(2)..