Talmud su Levitico 5:22

He denied it²⁷Lev. 5:22., not him²⁸In Sifra Ḥova (Wayyiqra 2) Pereq 22(6) more in detail: “About it but not about its finder.” This Tanna and both Talmudim reject the understanding of the verse as given in the Targumim, that the person swearing had found the lost property and now denies it. This would be covered by “robbery” listed in v. 21. Rather it is that the person searching for his lost property, such as his donkey mares, asks a person whether he knows either of the property or of the person who might have taken it. If he under oath falsely denies any knowledge, according to this Tanna be becomes liable for a sacrifice only if he wrongly denies knowledge about the property, not about the person who might have appropriated it.
The big question then becomes, why should the person asked for testimony be liable for anything since by necessity he is a single person and the testimony of a single person cannot force a judgment. As Ravad explains in his Commentary to Sifra, this argument would be unconditionally valid only for oaths about testimony, not for oaths about causing monetary loss. His scenario is, e. g., that the lost animal was standing on another person’s property. The original owner took it but now the person from whom it was taken claims ownership and wants it back. The second person agrees that he found the animal but he disputes the fact that it is the animal which had belonged to the first. In this situation, testimony of one witness about ownership of the animal is sufficient for a judgment in favor of the first person since it is not a judgment to transfer property but to confirm an existing status. On the other hand, testimony that the second person took possession of some lost property but which failed to identify the property is worthless and its denial cannot trigger any liability by the potential witness.. ²⁹Sifra Ḥova (Wayyiqra 2) Pereq 22(6), Babli Bava qamma 105b. In the Babli: “Three kinds of oaths [about lost property.]”“Ben Azzai says, there are three kinds of lost properties. One who knows about it and its finder; about it but not about its finder; neither about it nor about its finder.” Rebbi Onias in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: All of them to relieve from liability³⁰In the Babli, this is attributed to the early Galilean Amora R. Ḥanina.. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Yose: This is not so³¹In the Babli, this is the authoritative opinion of Samuel.. Rebbi Yose asked, why should it be to relieve from liability? Rebbi Mana said, the three kinds of lost property cannot be “one who knows about it and its finder; about it but not about its finder; neither about it nor about its finder.³²As the Babli points out, if somebody swears although he does not not know about the whole affair he swears truthfully and no liability of any kind can arise. In place of “neither about it nor about its finder” one must read “about it and its finder.”” About it and its finder, that is where we hold. But it must be about one who denies [knowledge] about it and its finder; about its finder but not about it; about it but not about its finder³³Only the middle clause is in dispute between Ben Azzai and the first Tanna.. So is the baraita: “About it and its finder.”

There⁸⁴Mishnah Ševuʻot 6:1. The subject is the biblical oath imposed on a person who denies an obligation (Ex. 22:8). The rabbinic interpretation of the expression אֲשֶׁר יֹאמַר כִּי הוּא זֶה is “if he [the defendant] agrees that there is a case.” If the defendant in a civil suit, in which there are no witnesses and no documents, denies the entire claim, he does not have to swear a biblical oath (he may have to swear a rabbinical oath). But if he agrees to part of the claim, he has to swear a biblical oath to free himself from the remainder. Only if the claim is advanced as tentative, then any admission by the defendant is a gift to the claimant and by rabbinic rule no oath of any kind is due., we have stated: “You⁸⁵The speaker is the claimant. have in your hand a mina of my father’s; you⁸⁶The speaker is the defendant. have to get from me only 50 denars. He does not have to swear since he is like a person who returns a find⁸⁷The heir is not conversant with all the details of his father’s business dealings. Since he cannot swear that the father had not received payment, he has no case if the defendant denies the entire claim. The partial admission of the claim is the equivalent of a gift by the defendant to the claimant..” Rebbi Eleazar said, in this case they instituted a regulation as they instituted for a find, as we have stated⁵⁰All other Mishnah sources have an additional clause, either as original text or addition: “The finder shall not be made to swear, for the public good.” Since the statement is quoted in the Halakhah (Note 88), it should be read here also.: “The finder of a lost object shall not swear because of the public good⁸⁸If the owner claims to have lost more than the finder returns, the finder cannot be made to swear that he did not retain anything for himself, since otherwise nobody would return any find..” Rebbi Abba said, this Mishnah [applies] when he said to him, you found my two oxen⁸⁹As explained later, one ox was found but the owner claims to have lost two. Returning one ox is not accepting part of a claim of two.. But if he⁹⁰The finder. said, I found your two oxen and returned both of them, but the other⁹¹The original owner. said, you returned only one, in that case they did not institute the rule⁹²He has to swear since both parties claim to be sure of their case.. Rebbi Pedat in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: In this case they did institute⁹³This is a case of returning a find and the finder is protected.. But in the first case⁸⁹As explained later, one ox was found but the owner claims to have lost two. Returning one ox is not accepting part of a claim of two., it is a word of the Torah, as it was stated: I could think that if he said to him, you found my two oxen⁹⁴This cannot be more than a conjecture; the claimant cannot make a defendant swear about a hypothetical case., but the other said, I found only one, should he be obligated [to swear]? The verse⁹⁵Lev. 5:22, speaking of the sacrifice required of the person who swears falsely in the situation described in Ex. 22:8. says, “or if he found a find and disowned it;” that excludes this one who did not disown. But if he said to him, I was standing on my roof when I saw you dragging away two tied oxen, two tied oxen you dragged away from me⁹⁶The claimant asserts as a certainty that he saw his two oxen in the finder’s possession., and he says, only one I dragged away; in that case they made no regulation. Similarly: “I was standing with my father when he was dying and he claimed from you a mina and you agreed to it⁹⁷This is an assertion of a certain claim which falls under the rule of Ex. 22:8.,” and the other says, “I agreed only for 50;” in that case they made no regulation.