Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) MULTIPLE LIABILITY

(a) (Mishnah): Reuven said 'I impose an oath on you if you will not testify for me that Ploni owes me a deposit, a loan, stolen property and a lost object'; the witnesses said 'We swear that we do not know testimony for you' - they only bring one sacrifice;

1. If they answered 'We swear that we do not know that Ploni owes you a deposit, loan, stolen property or lost object'; they are liable for each of these.

(b) 'I impose an oath on you if you will not testify for me that Ploni owes me a deposit of wheat, barley and spelt'; the witnesses said 'We swear that we do not know testimony for you' - they only bring one sacrifice;

1. If they answered 'We swear that we do not know that Ploni owes you wheat, barley and spelt', they are liable for each one.

(c) Witnesses are liable for Shevu'as ha'Edus if asked to testify about any of the following: that Ploni owes me for damage, half-damage, double payment (of a thief), payment of four or five (for selling or slaughtering a stolen animal), for raping or enticing my daughter, that my son owes me for hitting me, that Ploni wounded me or burned my stack on Yom Kipur.

(a) (Gemara) Question: Are witnesses liable for Shevu'as ha'Edus denying testimony about a fine?

1. We do not ask according to R. Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon, who holds that even after one admits to a fine, if witnesses testify against him he must pay it (their denial cost the claimant money, surely they are liable);
2. We ask according to Chachamim, who hold that witnesses do not obligate a fine after an admission.
3. Question: According to which opinion (regarding something which enables one to get money) do we ask?

i. Suggestion: If according to R. Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon (something which enables one to get money is like money), surely they are liable, perhaps they would have testified before the defendant (Shimon) admitted!

4. Answer: We ask according to Chachamim (something which enables one to get money is not like money).

i. Do we say, since if Shimon would admit he is exempt, this is not considered a claim of money?
ii. Or, since he has not admitted yet, it is like a claim of money?

(b) Answer #1 (Mishnah): That Ploni owes me for damage, half-damage...

1. Half-damage (i.e. a Tam animal that gored) is a fine, and they are liable!

(c) Rejection: According to the opinion that half-damage is not a fine, this is no proof.
(d) Suggestion: But according to the opinion that it is a fine, this is a proof!
(e) Rejection: No, we can say that it refers to half-damage caused by (kicking) pebbles;

1. A tradition from Moshe from Sinai teaches that this is not a fine.

(f) Answer #2 (Mishnah): ...Double payment (the fine a thief must pay, and the witnesses are liable)!
(g) Rejection: Double payment includes principal (which is not a fine, they are liable for denying knowledge of this).
(h) Answer #3 (Mishnah): ...Payment of four or five.
(i) Rejection: These payments include principal.
(j) Answer #4 (Mishnah): ...For raping or enticing my daughter (for which there is a fine of 50 Shekalim).
(k) Rejection: A rapist or enticer also pays for embarrassment and blemish (i.e. the decreased amount people will pay to Mekadesh a non-virgin), which are not fines.

1. Question: Why does the Mishnah teach all these cases that are not fines?
2. Answer: There is a Chidush in one of the first clauses, and in the last clause.
3. The case of half-damage teaches that pebbles is not a fine;
4. The case of burning a stack on Yom Kipur teaches unlike R. Nechunyah ben Hakaneh.

i. (Beraisa - R. Nechunyah ben Hakaneh): Just as one who damages by doing Melachah on Shabbos is exempt from payment (because this is punishable by death administered by Beis Din, one does not forfeit his life and money at the same time), the same applies to Yom Kipur (Melachah on Yom Kipur is punishable by Kares, which includes death at the hands of Heaven).

(l) Answer #5 (Beraisa): Witnesses are liable for Shevu'as ha'Edus about Motzi Shem Ra (Shimon married a Na'arah and falsely claimed that she was not a virgin, he must pay her father a fine of 100 Shekalim; if Shimon confessed on his own, he is exempt.

(m) Rejection: The Beraisa is R. Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon, who says that witnesses obligate a fine even after an admission; our question is according to Chachamim.

1. Question: But the end of the Beraisa says 'if Shimon confessed on his own, he is exempt' (presumably, even if witnesses testify later) - this is like Chachamim!
2. Answer: No, the entire Beraisa is R. Elazar;

i. It teaches that the only time he is exempt when he admits is if witnesses never testify.

(a) (Mishnah): Witnesses are exempt for Shevu'as ha'Edus if asked to testify about any of the following: that I am a Kohen, or a Levi, or (regarding a Kohen) that my mother was not divorced or a Chalutzah, or that Ploni is a Kohen, or a Levi, or that his mother was not divorced or a Chalutzah, or that Reuven raped or enticed his (Rashi - Ploni's; some explain - own) daughter, or that my son wounded me, or that Shimon wounded me or burned my stack on Shabbos.
(b) (Gemara) Inference: They are only exempt because they were asked to testify about Ploni's lineage - had they been asked to testify that Shimon owes him money, they would be liable!
(c) Question: But the continuation of our Mishnah (35A) teaches that they are not liable unless the claimant asked them!
(d) Answer (Shmuel): They would be liable if the asked to testify by someone with a Harsha'ah (power of attorney).
(e) Question: But Chachamim of Neharda'a taught that we do not write a Harsha'ah on Metaltelim!
(f) Answer: That is only if the defendant denied owing; if not, we may write it.

(a) (Beraisa): Question: What is the source that witnesses are liable for Shevu'as ha'Edus only if there was a monetary claim?
(b) Answer #1 (R. Eliezer): The word 'O' is repeated in the Parshah of Shevu'as ha'Edus, and also in Shevu'as ha'Pikadon;

1. Just as the latter refers to a claim of money, also the former.
2. Question: Why not learn from the Parshah of a murderer, in which the word 'O' is repeated, yet it does not refer to a claim of money?
3. Answer: It is preferable to learn Shevu'as ha'Edus from another Parshah that involves an oath.
4. Question: Why not learn from the Parshah of Sotah, in which the word 'O' is repeated and it involves an oath, yet it does not refer to a claim (primarily) of money?
5. Answer: It is preferable to learn Shevu'as ha'Edus from another Parshah that involves an oath and does not involve a Kohen.

(c) Answer #2 (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 (later we will explain how he learns this).

(d) Answer #3 (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)

1. Seeing without understanding - for example, they saw Reuven give Shimon money, they does not know why;
2. Knowing without seeing - for example, they heard Shimon admit to Reuven