Shevuot 31a — the Talmud in English

Mnemonic: three, student; student; and three, litigant; owner of a debt and obligation; rags; hears; and causes to err].

Whence [do we know] concerning a student

who sits before his teacher while he judges the case,

and sees

the student

a merit for the poor person and an obligation for the wealthy person,

while his teacher does not see this,

whence [do we know] that he should not remain silent

the student, but rather should point this out to his teacher?

The verse states: “From a false matter distance yourself”!

Whence [do we know] concerning a student who sees his teacher erring in the law, that he should not say: “I shall wait for him until he finishes it, and I shall refute him, and I shall construct it from my own [reasoning], so that the judgment will be called by my name”? The verse states: “From a false matter distance yourself”! [

The falsehood is in his silence, in that he does not correct his teacher before he finishes the judgment].

Whence [do we know] concerning a student whose teacher said to him: “You know about me that even if they give me one hundred maneh, I do not fabricate [

a lie]. And now I say to you that

I have one maneh with so-and-so, and I have only one witness against him! Whence [do we know] that he should not join

the student

with him,

with the other witness, to testify in favor of his teacher as a second witness?

The verse states: “From a false matter distance yourself”!

And we raise a difficulty: Is

this derived from “From a false matter distance yourself”? Surely he is certainly lying,

for the student testifies that he himself saw how the debt came into being, whereas he saw nothing but merely believed his teacher,

and the Merciful One said: “You shall not answer against your fellow as a false witness”!

And we answer:

Rather,

here it is speaking of

a case where he said to him,

his teacher:

“Certainly, I have one witness, and you come, stand there, and say nothing at all, for you have not brought falsehood out of your mouth,”

but my intention is that the defendant will acknowledge the truth on his own, because when he sees you together with the witness, he will think that I have two witnesses.

And even so, it is forbidden

to do so,

because it is stated: “From a false matter distance yourself”!

Whence [do we know] concerning one who is owed a maneh by his fellow, that he should not say: “I will claim from him two hundred, so that he will acknowledge one maneh to me and become obligated to me for an oath, and I will roll upon him an oath from another place,”

concerning a claim of land that I have against him, for which one does not take an oath?

The verse states: “From a false matter distance yourself”!

Whence [do we know] concerning one who is owed a maneh by his fellow, and he claimed from him

the creditor claimed from his fellow

two hundred, that he should not say

the defendant, who is being required to pay two hundred unlawfully,

“I will deny it

concerning the entire claim of two hundred

in court, and I will acknowledge to him

afterward the truth, that I owe him one maneh,

outside the court, so that I will not become obligated to him for an oath, and he will not roll upon me an oath from another place

that I need not swear to him?

The verse states: “From a false matter distance yourself”!

Whence [do we know] concerning three who are owed a maneh by one person, that one should not be

of them

a litigant

and claim the entire maneh,

and two

the others should be

witnesses, so that they will extract a maneh and divide it

among themselves?

The verse states: “From a false matter distance yourself”!

For litigants are not permitted to testify, even though this is the truth, and only in this manner will they be able to collect what is due to them.

Whence [do we know] concerning two who came to court, one wearing rags and one wearing a garment worth one hundred maneh, that they say to him

to the wealthy person—

“Wear

a garment

like his

of the poor person, or

dress him

in a garment

like yours”? The verse states: “From a false matter distance yourself”!

For the expensive garment may cause partiality on the part of the judges, and may seal the claims of the opposing side. And it follows that this garment, the itztela, establishes the falsehood through its impressive appearance.

When

the litigants

came before Rava bar Rav Huna

to be judged before him,

he said to them: “Take off your puzmokei,

remove the fine socks from your feet,

and come down to the judgment”!

Whence [do we know] concerning a judge that he should not hear the words of one litigant before the other litigant comes? The verse states: “From a false matter distance yourself”!

Whence [do we know] concerning a litigant that he should not present his words attractively to the judge before the other litigant comes? The verse states: “From a false matter distance yourself”!

Rav Kahana would teach

the prohibition for a judge to accept the words of one litigant before his fellow comes,

from “You shall not bear

a false report.” For its meaning is “You shall not accept.” But the prohibition against a litigant presenting his words attractively to the judge before his fellow comes, he derived from

“You shall not cause to bear

a false report” [that is, that “You shall not bear” can also be read in another manner—“You shall not cause to bear”], to say that one who presents his words attractively when his litigant is not present is not ashamed of words of falsehood, and this is “a false report.”

That which is written in the Book of Ezekiel [chapter 18]:

“And that which is not good he did

among his people—and behold, he died because of his iniquity.” What is “he did not do good”? Rav and Shmuel disagree about it:

Rav said: This is

one who interferes in a quarrel that is not his, that is,

one who comes with authorization

from his fellow to collect on his behalf a debt owed to him. And his deed is not a good deed because it is possible that the creditor himself would have compromised with the debtor, whereas he, who came to collect as an authorized agent, is not permitted to compromise; and it follows that the debtor loses the possibility of compromising with his creditor.

And Shmuel said: This is one who purchases a field concerning which there are claimants,

who challenge it, saying that it belongs to them, and nevertheless he purchases it, relying on his physical strength, that the challengers will not be able to take it from him. Yet it is possible that the challengers are correct, and it follows that this person is holding a stolen field.

We learned in the Mishna:

The oath of testimony applies only to those fit to testify.

To exclude what?

Rav Pappa said: To exclude a king,

who neither testifies nor is testified against, and this is not because of disqualification, but because of the honor of the king.

And Rav Aha bar Yaakov said: To exclude one who plays dice,

who is disqualified only by rabbinic law.

The one who says

to exclude

one who plays dice—certainly a king,

who does not testify by Torah law, and therefore the oath of testimony does not apply to him.

And the one who says

to exclude

a king,

only in the case of a king does the oath of testimony not apply.

But one who plays dice

the oath of testimony does apply to him, because

by Torah law he is fit

one who plays dice is fit to testify,

and

only

the Sages disqualified him.

And therefore, by Torah law the oath of testimony takes effect upon him, and we read in his case, “When a person hears the voice of an oath.” And therefore, with regard to the obligation of the sacrifice for the oath of testimony, which is by Torah law, we establish him according to his law by Torah law, and he is obligated to bring a sacrifice for his oath of testimony.

We learned in the Mishna:

The oath of testimony applies in the presence of

a court and not in the presence of a court,

on his own initiative; these are the words of Rabbi Meir. And the Sages say: They are not liable until they deny it in court.

And we discuss it:

With regard to what do

the Sages and Rabbi Meir

disagree?

They said it before Rav Pappa:

“Derive from it and from it”

or “derive from it and establish it in its place”—they disagree.

And this is the matter: With regard to a law learned from another through a gezera shava, must one learn all the details from the place that teaches it, as though the matter being learned were written in the place of the one teaching it [and this is “derive from it and from it”—as though it were truly “from it”]? Or may one learn only one particular detail, and say, “derive from it” through the gezera shava the particular detail, but from this point onward “establish [the matter being learned] in its place,” so that with regard to the other details it “remains in its place,” since it does not entirely resemble the matter teaching it?

The oath of testimony stated in the Torah is in the case of one sworn by the mouth of others, as it is written: “When a person hears the voice of an oath—and he is a witness.” And below the derivation through a gezera shava from the oath of the deposit is brought, from which it follows that even a witness who swears on his own initiative is also liable for the sacrifice of the oath of testimony. “

The oath of the deposit” is an oath that the bailee himself swears, and it includes all types of monetary claims that the defendant falsely denies, and falsely swears concerning his denial, for which he is liable because of his denial with an oath—a sacrifice for the oath of the deposit!

And since we learn the law of one who swears on his own initiative in the oath of testimony through a gezera shava from one who swears on his own initiative in the oath of the deposit, the Sages and Rabbi Meir disagreed as to what the conclusion of the derivation through the gezera shava is.

Rabbi Meir held: “Derive from it and from it” from the oath of the deposit.

And this means: Derive the law of the oath of testimony, “from it,” from the oath of the deposit. “

And from it” of the oath of the deposit, you must learn also all the details of the law of the oath of testimony, as though the oath of testimony had been stated within the section of the oath of the deposit.

And thus we learn from the oath of the deposit:

Just as in the case of the deposit, one sworn by his own mouth is liable,

so too, in the case of testimony, one sworn by his own mouth is liable.

And this is “derive from it”!

“And from it”

of the oath of the deposit, you must learn also the remaining details of the oath of testimony:

Just as the oath of the deposit

applies

both

if the defendant swore falsely

in court and not in court—

so too

the oath of

testimony

for which he is liable for a sacrifice,

both

if the oath was

in court and not in court!

And the Sages hold: “Derive from it and establish it in its place.”

For indeed, we must learn from the oath of the deposit to make one who swears the oath of testimony on his own initiative also liable. But only this detail is learned through the gezera shava; and from this point onward, with regard to the remaining details, “establish it in its place”: establish the law of the oath of testimony in its place, and judge it according to the law stated in the Torah in its place, in the section of the oath of testimony, which is in court. For it was not stated concerning it that he is liable for the sacrifice of the oath of testimony even when it is not in the presence of a court.

And thus we learn from the oath of the deposit:

Just as in the case of the deposit, one sworn by his own mouth is liable,

so too, in the case of testimony, one sworn by his own mouth is liable.

And this is “derive from it.”

But

“and establish it in its place”—

just as one sworn by the mouth of others,

which is stated with regard to the oath of testimony,

in court, [he is liable]; not in court, [he is] not [liable]; so too, one sworn by his own mouth

concerning testimony [even though you learned the substance of its law from the oath of the deposit],

in court, [he is liable]; not in court, [he is] not [liable].

Because of “establish it in its place,” according to the law of the oath of testimony, which was stated in the Torah specifically in court!