Shevuot 30a — the Talmud in English

Mishna:

The oath of testimony,

which the claimant administers to his fellow concerning testimony, to come and testify in court to what is known to him. If he lied and denied it, saying that he does not know testimony concerning him, he is liable for a sacrifice for the oath of testimony,

applies —

to men and not to women,

because women are not qualified to testify.

To distant persons

and not

to relatives.

For if the witnesses were relatives of the litigants, they are disqualified from testifying.

To qualified persons, and not to disqualified persons

for testimony, such as a robber and the like.

And it applies

the oath of testimony

only to those fit

to testify.

This excludes a king, who does not testify because of his honor [or it excludes one who plays with dice, who is disqualified from testifying by rabbinic law].

And the oath of testimony applies both

in the presence of the court

and

not in the presence of the court.

All this is when the witness swore the oath of testimony

on his own initiative.

But if he does not swear himself, but he is adjured

by others,

that they adjured him that he come to testify, and he lied, and denied it, and claimed that he does not know testimony, then

they are not liable

for that oath by others

until they deny it

the witnesses

in court —

the words of Rabbi Meir.

And the Sages say: whether

the witness swore

on his own initiative, and whether

he was adjured

by others, they are not liable

the witnesses

until they deny it in court!

And they are liable

the witnesses for a sacrifice for the oath of testimony, both

for deliberate violation of the oath,

when they were entirely deliberate, in that they knew the truth, that their denial under oath was false, and they also knew the severity of their deeds, that they become liable for an ascending-and-descending sacrifice,

and

both

for its inadvertent violation,

when they did not know the gravity of the matter for which they become liable for a sacrifice. But this inadvertence was together

with deliberate violation of the testimony,

for they knew the testimony, and nevertheless denied it under oath and said that they did not know.

But

they are not liable

for a sacrifice

for its inadvertent violation

that is absolute, of the oath of testimony, when they forgot the testimony, and at the time that they swore or were adjured to come and testify, they truly thought that they did not know the testimony, and therefore swore that they did not know.

And for what are they liable for deliberate violation of the oath —

an ascending-and-descending sacrifice!

Gemara:

The Gemara discusses:

From where are these words

that a woman is disqualified from testifying?

For the Sages taught:

The Torah said [Deuteronomy 19]: “By the mouth of two witnesses or three witnesses shall a matter be established! When a false witness rises against a person, to testify against him deviated testimony

the two men shall stand

who have the dispute before the Lord, before the priests and the judges.”

And we expound:

“The two men shall stand” —

Scripture speaks of witnesses,

and not of the litigants. For earlier it says, “When a witness rises.” And since Scripture said “men” concerning witnesses, Scripture comes to teach that women are not qualified to testify.

You say

that Scripture speaks

of witnesses, or is it only of the litigants?

When it says, “who have the dispute,” the litigants have already been mentioned. What, then, do I establish

the beginning of the verse,

“The two men shall stand”? —

Scripture speaks of witnesses!

And if you wish to say

a refutation of these words, here you have a gzerah shavah, which cannot be refuted:

It is stated here, “two

men,”

and it is stated there

above it, “By the mouth of

two

witnesses a matter shall be established.”

Just as there it is concerning witnesses,

so here it is concerning witnesses!

And we inquire:

What is the meaning of “And if you wish to say”?

What was the refutation that could have been raised?

And we answer:

And if you would say, since the Merciful One did not write

“The two men shall stand

and who have the dispute,

but wrote, “the two men who have the dispute,” I would say that

the entire

verse

speaks of the litigants

[speaks] —

therefore one must learn from what

is stated here, “two,” and it is stated there, “two”: just as there it is concerning witnesses, so here it is concerning witnesses.

That is, although in this verse the connecting letter vav is not stated [“and who have the dispute”], nevertheless we must read it as follows: “The two men shall stand” — the witnesses. And likewise the two litigants, who have the dispute, shall stand.

It was taught in another beraita: “The two men shall stand” —

Scripture speaks of witnesses!

You say, of witnesses, or is it only of the litigants?

You have said:

Is it only

two

men

who come to judgment,

but

three do not come to judgment?!

And from this it is proven that the verse speaks of witnesses, because it is the way of the world to bring two witnesses, since more than two are not needed. But litigants, if there are several litigants, it is their way to come to court, all of them.

And if you wish to say

a refutation of these words, you can learn by a gzerah shavah:

“Two” is stated here, and “two” is stated there —

just as there it is with two witnesses, so here it is with two witnesses!

And we inquire:

What is the meaning of “And if you wish to say”?

And we answer:

And if you would say, the verse is speaking of a claimant and a defendant,

with all the claimants considered as one and all the defendants considered as one, and all of them together are called “the two men” —

“Two” is stated here, and “two” is stated there: just as there it is concerning witnesses, so here it is concerning witnesses!

It was taught in another beraita: “The two men shall stand” —

Scripture speaks of witnesses! You say, of witnesses, or is it only of the litigants? You have said: Is it only

two

men who come to judgment,

but

women do not come to judgment?! And if you wish to say —

“Two” is stated here, and “two” is stated there: just as there it is concerning witnesses, so here it is concerning witnesses!

And we inquire:

What is the meaning of “And if you wish to say”?

And we answer:

And if you would say

that since

it is not a woman’s way

to come to judgment,

because “all the honor of the king’s daughter is within,”

therefore the wording of the verse, “and the men shall stand,” is suitable for the litigants. You can learn by a gzerah shavah:

“Two” is stated here, and “two” is stated there —

just as there it is concerning witnesses, so here it is concerning witnesses!

The Sages taught: “The two men shall stand” —

a mitzva

for the litigants to stand

before the judges.

And although above we expounded that this verse speaks of witnesses, the intention is not to exclude the litigants, but to include the witnesses as well.

Rabbi Judah said: I heard that if they wished

the judges

to seat both of them —

they seat them! What is

the

prohibition

of sitting? —

That one of the litigants should not be sitting and one standing; one should speak as much as he needs, while the other is told by him

the judge:

Shorten your words!

Alternatively: “With righteousness shall you judge your fellow” —

Judge your fellow favorably.

That is, the verse is not speaking of litigants who come before the judge; rather, it is guidance for one who sees his fellow doing something that can be evaluated as a transgression and can be evaluated as a meritorious act: he must decide the doubt and judge him favorably, and not suspect him of a transgressive act.

Rav Yosef taught: “With righteousness shall you judge your fellow,” “your fellow” means

“your fellow”

“one who is with you.”

One who is with you

in Torah and in mitzvot —

strive to judge him favorably!

And below it is explained that if a judge has several cases to judge, he must judge the case of a Torah scholar first, because he has precedence.

And the Gemara brings an incident in which they advanced the case of a Torah scholar:

Rav Ulla son of Rav Ilai had a case before Rav Naḥman.

Rav Yosef sent to Rav Naḥman

to inform him:

Ulla —

our colleague, a fellow in Torah and mitzvot!

Rav Naḥman said

and wondered:

Why did he send me

Rav Yosef such a message? Was his intention

to flatter him,

so that he would find favor in his eyes?

He reconsidered and said

Rav Naḥman: apparently Rav Yosef’s intention was to inform me of this in order

to permit his case to go first.

To advance the adjudication of his case before other cases, by virtue of his being a Torah scholar.