Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) THERE MUST BE A MONETARY CLAIM (cont.)

(a) Answer #4 (to Question 4:a - R. Shimon): A sacrifice is brought for (a false) Shevu'as ha'Edus, just as for Shevu'as ha'Pikadon;

1. Just as Shevu'as ha'Pikadon is when there is a claim of money, also Shevu'as ha'Edus.
2. Suggestion: A Kal va'Chomer should teach this: Shevu'as ha'Pikadon applies equally to men and women, to relatives and strangers, valid and invalid witnesses, he is liable for every false oath, in Beis Din or outside, yet it only applies when money was claimed;

i. Shevu'as ha'Edus only applies to men, (who are) strangers, valid witnesses, he is only liable for one false oath if it was in Beis Din, all the more so it only applies when money was claimed!

3. Rejection: We can refute the Kal va'Chomer, for Shevu'as ha'Pikadon has leniencies (based on what is explicit in the Parshah, as will be explained later) - one is liable only if he swore himself, and he was Shogeg, whereas one is liable for Shevu'as ha'Edus even if the oath was imposed on him, and even if he was Mezid.
4. Rather, we learn from (Shevu'as ha'Pikadon from) a Gezerah Shavah "Secheta-Secheta".

(b) Question (against R. Eliezer - Rabah bar Ula): The word 'O' is also repeated in the Parshah of Shevu'as Bituy, which involves an oath and does not involve a Kohen, and it applies even when there is no claim of money!
(c) Answer #1: It is preferable to learn from Shevu'as ha'Pikadon, by which it also says "Secheta".
(d) Objection: It is preferable to learn from Shevu'as Bituy, for which a Chatas is brought (like Shevu'as ha'Edus, but an Asham is brought for Shevu'as ha'Pikadon)!
(e) Answer #2: Rather, we learn from Shevu'as ha'Pikadon, for this resembles Shevu'as ha'Edus in the following ways: by both it says "Secheta", one is liable even for Mezid, they come through claim and denial, the oaths only apply to what already happened,
(f) Question: We should learn from Shevu'as Bituy, this resembles Shevu'as ha'Edus in these respects: a Chatas is brought for them, the sacrifice is an Oleh v'Yored, the oaths do not obligate one to add a fifth (whereas one who takes a false Shevu'as ha'Pikadon must add a fifth to the principal)!
(g) Answer: There are more similarities to Shevu'as ha'Pikadon.
(h) (Beraisa - R. Akiva): "Ki Yesham l'Achas *me*'Eleh" - for *some* of these oaths he is liable, not for others;

1. He is liable for those with a claim of money, exempt for others.

(i) Question: Why not learn the other way?
(j) Answer: R. Akiva also learns from the repetition of the word 'O' in the Parshiyos of Shevu'as ha'Edus and Shevu'as ha'Pikadon, like R. Eliezer.
(k) Question: What is the difference (in Halachah) between R. Eliezer and R. Akiva?
(l) Answer #1: Witnesses about land - R. Eliezer obligates them (just as he holds that land can be stolen), R. Akiva exempts (he learns from "Me'Eleh").
(m) Question: According to R. Yochanan, who says that even R. Eliezer exempts witnesses about land, what is the difference between them?
(n) Answer #2: Witnesses about a fine - R. Eliezer obligates them, R. Akiva exempts (from "*Me*'Eleh").

(a) (Beraisa - R. Yosi ha'Galili): "V'hu Ed O Ra'ah *O* Yada" - the Parshah discusses testimony possible through seeing (without understanding) *or* knowing (without seeing); (we only find these by monetary cases)
(b) Suggestion (Rav Papa): R. Yosi ha'Galili argues with R. Acha.

1. (Beraisa - R. Acha): A dead camel was found near a camel that was kicking (or in heat) - surely, the latter killed it.
2. According to R. Acha, we also find testimony of knowing without seeing (the action) by capital cases, such as the case R. Shimon ben Shetach saw.

i. (Beraisa - R. Shimon ben Shetach): I saw Reuven chase Levi into a ruin; I ran after him, and saw Levi dying and blood dripping from a knife in Reuven's hand.
ii. R. Shimon ben Shetach: Surely you killed him, but I am only one witness, "Al Pi Shnayim Edim...Yumas ha'Mes" - I must leave it for Hash-m to punish you.
iii. Before they left, a snake bit and killed Reuven.

(c) Rejection (Abaye): R. Yosi ha'Galili can agree with R. Acha;

1. In capital cases, even though we find testimony of knowing without seeing, we do not find testimony of seeing without knowing;
2. It does not suffice to say 'We saw Reuven kill this man' unless they know that the victim was a Yisrael and was not a Treifah.

(d) Inference: R. Yosi ha'Galili must hold that Shevu'as ha'Edus does not apply to fines.

1. In fines, even if we find testimony of knowing without seeing, we do not find testimony of seeing without knowing;
2. It does not suffice to say 'We saw Reuven entice or rape this girl' unless they know that she was a Bas Yisrael and was a virgin.

(e) Question (Rav Yehudah): Shimon told Levi 'I gave 100 Zuz to you in front of Ploni and Almoni', and Ploni and Almoni saw this from outside - what is the law?

(f) Answer (Rav Hamnuna): Either way, this is simple!

1. If Levi denied ever getting the money, (when Ploni and Almoni testify) he is established as a liar (and he is not believed to say that the money was a gift or payment of a loan, Shimon is believed to say it was a loan);
2. If Levi says 'Yes, you paid me 100 Zuz that you owed me', the testimony does not obligate him at all.

(g) (Reish Lakish): Reuven told Yehudah 'I gave 100 Zuz to you next to this pillar', Yehudah said 'I did not pass by this pillar'. Two witnesses testified that Yehudah once urinated by the pillar - Yehudah is established to be a liar (he must pay Reuven).
(h) Objection (Rav Nachman): Yehudah did not mean that he never passed the pillar, rather, he did not receive money by it! (He is believed to say that the money was payment or a gift.)
(i) (Rav Nachman): Reuven told Yehudah 'I gave 100 Zuz to you next to this pillar', Yehudah said 'I never passed by this pillar'. Two witnesses testified that Yehudah once urinated by the pillar - Yehudah is established to be a liar.
(j) Objection (Rava): Since Yehudah never thought that it was relevant if he was by the pillar, he never put it to his mind, it is reasonable that he does not remember having been there.

(a) (Beraisa - R. Shimon): A sacrifice is brought for (a false) Shevu'as ha'Edus, just as for Shevu'as ha'Pikadon...
(b) In Eretz Yisrael Rabanan laughed at what R. Shimon's said.
(c) Question: What is funny about it?
(d) Answer #1: He said that Shevu'as ha'Pikadon has leniencies, one is not liable for it if the oath was imposed on him, or if he was Mezid, he is liable for Shevu'as ha'Edus whether he swore himself or if the oath was imposed on him, and whether he was Mezid or Shogeg;

1. We only learned that Shevu'as ha'Edus applies when he swears himself from Shevu'as ha'Pikadon (Rashi - from a Gezerah Shavah "Secheta-Secheta"; Tosfos - from a 'Mah Matzinu (precedent)) - likewise, we should learn Shevu'as ha'Pikadon from Shevu'as ha'Edus, that it applies when the oath was imposed on him!

(e) Rejection: That is no reason to laugh - perhaps R. Shimon does not learn Shevu'as ha'Edus (when he swears himself) from Shevu'as ha'Pikadon, rather from a Kal va'Chomer;

1. The Torah obligates Shevu'as ha'Edus when the oath was imposed on him, all the more so when he swears himself!

(f) Answer #2: Rather, they laughed because he said that Shevu'as ha'Pikadon has the leniency that he is not liable if he was Mezid, but Shevu'as ha'Edus is even if he was Mezid;

1. Presumably, we learn liability for Shevu'as ha'Edus when Mezid because it does not say "v'Nelam" - also the Parshah of Shevu'as ha'Pikadon does not say "v'Nelam"!

(g) Rejection (Rav Huna): That is no reason to laugh - perhaps R. Shimon learns Shevu'as ha'Pikadon from Me'ilah, to exempt Mezid!
(h) Answer #3: They laughed because he should learn from Shevu'as ha'Edus rather than from Me'ilah.

1. Question: That is no reason to laugh - it is better to learn from (Rashi - a Mah Matzinu; Rashba - a Gezerah Shavah) from Me'ilah, for 'Me'ilah' is also written by Shevu'as ha'Pikadon.
2. Answer: No, it is better to learn from (Rashi a Mah Matzinu; Rashba - a Gezerah Shavah) from Shevu'as ha'Edus, by which it also says 'Secheta'.
3. Question: We should learn from Me'ilah, this resembles Shevu'as ha'Pikadon in these respects: it says 'Me'ilah' by both, they apply to everyone, one is liable for benefiting from his transgression, the sacrifice brought for them is an Asham, it is the same for rich or poor people, one adds a fifth to the amount he benefited.
4. Answer: Rather, we learn from Shevu'as ha'Pikadon, for this resembles Shevu'as ha'Edus in the following ways: by both it says "Secheta", they are transgressions against a person (as opposed to Hekdesh), they are oaths, they come through claim and denial, by both the word 'O' is repeated.
5. Rejection: There are more reasons to learn from Me'ilah!
6. We still have not answered why they laughed!

(i) Answer #4 (Rav Papa and Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua): They laughed because (in the conclusion) R. Shimon learns a Gezerah Shavah "Secheta-Secheta" to Shevu'as ha'Edus;

1. How can he say that Shevu'as ha'Pikadon is more lenient, since one is not liable for it if the oath was imposed on him, or if he was Mezid - he should learn from (the Gezerah Shavah in the other direction, from) Shevu'as ha'Edus that he is liable!
2. Question: That is no reason to laugh - perhaps he shows that *without* the Gezerah Shavah, Shevu'as ha'Pikadon has leniencies, therefore we (cannot learn from a Mah Matzinu and) need a Gezerah Shavah to teach to Shevu'as ha'Edus;

i. In the conclusion, after learning the Gezerah Shavah, he indeed learns from Shevu'as ha'Edus that he is liable!

3. Answer: That is wrong, for Rava bar Isi taught that R. Shimon says that there is no atonement (sacrifice) for Mezid Shevu'as ha'Pikadon!
4. Question: Still, we can say that R. Shimon shows that without the Gezerah Shavah, Shevu'as ha'Pikadon has the leniency that one is exempt if the oath was imposed on him, therefore we need a Gezerah Shavah;

i. In the conclusion, after learning the Gezerah Shavah, he indeed learns from Shevu'as ha'Edus that he is liable when the oath was imposed on him, but he is exempt for Mezid (which he learns from Me'ilah, because there are more similarities)! (So why did they laugh?)

5. Answer: They laughed because the Gezerah Shavah should teach that Mezid Shevu'as ha'Edus is also exempt!
6. R. Shimon holds that the Torah wrote Shevu'as ha'Edus near the Parshiyos of oaths of Bituy and Tum'as Mikdash and Kodshim, by which it says "v'Nelam" (and it should not say this by Shevu'as ha'Edus) to teach that Mezid Shevu'as ha'Edus is liable.