Shevuot 35a — the Talmud in English

And we answer:

For this reason the Merciful One wrote

the law of the oath of

testimony alongside the oath of expression and alongside the impurity of the Temple and its sacred things

[in the same passage],

for in all of them it is stated

in them

“and it was concealed,” whereas here,

but with regard to testimony,

“and it was concealed” is not stated in them.

This teaches you

to render one liable for the intentional act like for the unwitting act

in the oath of testimony!

Mishna:

1.

“I administer an oath to you: if you do not come and testify for me that so-and-so said that he would give me two hundred zuz,”

and that so-and-so did not stand by his promise,

and did not give it to me—

these are exempt, for they are liable

for the oath of testimony

only for a monetary claim such as a deposit,

for if they testified, they would render him liable, and not for a claim concerning the fulfillment of a promise.

2.

“I administer an oath to you that when you come to know testimony for me

in the future

you will come and testify for me”—

these are exempt, because the oath preceded the testimony.

3.

He stood in the synagogue and said: “I administer an oath to you,”

to those present here,

“that if you know testimony for me, you will come and testify for me”—

these are exempt,

because he did not designate the witnesses, but addressed the entire public.

4.

He said to two: “I administer an oath to you, so-and-so and so-and-so, that if you know testimony for me, you will come and testify for me,”

and the witnesses answered him:

“An oath that we do not know testimony for you.” And they

indeed

know testimony for him,

except that that testimony was testimony of

one witness from another witness, or one of them was a relative or disqualified—

these are exempt,

for they are not fit to give testimony. [And even if two were fit and the third disqualified—Tosafot.]

5.

He sent

the claimant

by means of his slave

to administer an oath to the witnesses,

or the defendant himself said to them

himself:

“I administer an oath to you that if you know testimony for him,”

for the claimant,

“you will come and testify for him”—

these are exempt,

for there is no liability for the oath of testimony

until they hear it from the mouth of the claimant

alone.

Gemara:

The Sages taught: “I administer an oath to you: if you do not come and testify for me that so-and-so said that he would give me two hundred zuz and did not give it to me. Could it be that they will be liable? The verse states: ‘You sin

you sin,’ by means of a gzera shava

from the oath of a deposit.

It is stated here,

in the oath of testimony,

“you sin,” and it is stated there,

in the oath of a deposit,

“you sin.” Just as there, it is for a monetary claim and he has money

with his fellow, and not merely a promise,

so too here it is for a monetary claim and he has

money with his fellow.

We learned in the Mishna: “I administer an oath to you that when you come to know testimony for me in the future,” etc.

The Sages taught: “I administer an oath to you that when you come to know testimony for me you will come and testify for me. Could it be that they will be liable? The verse states: ‘And he hears the voice of an oath

and he is a witness, or he saw, or he knew!’”

This teaches you:

one whose testimony preceded the oath is liable

for the offering of the oath of testimony,

but not

one

whose oath preceded the testimony!

We learned in the Mishna:

“He stood in the synagogue and said: ‘I administer an oath to you.’”

Shmuel said: “Even if his witnesses were among them,

they are exempt.”

And we raise an objection:

Is it obvious

that it is speaking of a situation in which his witnesses were among them? For if his witnesses were not among them, who is there who would become liable, and why would the Mishna need to exempt them?

And we answer:

It is necessary; for the claimant was standing over them,

standing near the witnesses.

You might have said

that his standing near them means

as one who said it to them; it teaches us

that they must be designated explicitly!

It was taught likewise,

for although he stood beside them, this is not equivalent to designating his witnesses. For it was taught:

“He saw a group of people standing, and his witnesses were among them, and he said to them,

without designating the witnesses, but merely standing near them:

‘I administer an oath to you: if you know testimony for me, you will come and testify for me. Could it be that they will be liable?’—

the verse states: ‘And he is a witness’

—that the witness must be designated,

and behold,

this person

did not designate his witnesses

but merely stood near them.

Could it be that even if he said: “All those standing here”

[whose words mean: here—the ones standing nearby],

the verse states: “And he is a witness,” and behold, he designated his witnesses

by saying “all those standing here,” whose words mean—all those standing near me!

We learned in the Mishna:

“He said to two: ‘I administer an oath to you.’”

The Sages taught: “He said to two: ‘I administer an oath to you, so-and-so and so-and-so, if you know testimony for me, you will come and testify for me.’ And they know testimony for him

which is testimony of

one witness from another witness, or one of them was a relative or disqualified; could it be that they will be liable?”—

the verse states: “If he does not declare it, he shall bear his iniquity”—

the verse is speaking of those fit to give testimony.

We learned in the Mishna:

“He sent

the claimant

by means of his slave to administer an oath to them,”

etc.

The Sages taught: “He sent by means of his slave, or the defendant said to them

in place of the claimant:

‘I administer an oath to you that if you know testimony for him,’

for the claimant,

“you will come and testify for him; could it be that they will be liable? The verse states: ‘If he does not declare it, he shall bear his iniquity.’”

And we examine this:

What is the indication,

where is it hinted in this verse that the claimant himself must demand that they testify for him?

Rabbi Elazar said: “If lo yiggid” is written,

for “lo” is written fully, to expound it as: to him, no! And this is how we read it:

“If to him,

to the claimant,

he does not declare it, he shall bear his iniquity,”

but

“if to another”

who is not the claimant

he does not declare it—

then he is

exempt.

Mishna:

1. One who administers an oath to witnesses that they should come and testify for him and says to them:

“I administer an oath to you,”

or says

“I command

you,”

or says

“I bind you”—these are liable.

[And in the Gemara it is explained that he said, “I command you by an oath,” or “I bind you by an oath.”]

2. Witnesses to whom an oath was administered

by heaven and earth,

although their intention was to swear by the One who created them, since they mentioned that they swear by heaven and earth,

these are exempt.

3. And if he administered an oath to the witnesses

by

the name

Alef-Dalet

—Nun-Yod, or

by Yod-He

—Vav-He,

by Shaddai, by Tzevaot, by Gracious and Merciful, by Long-suffering, by Abundant Kindness, and by all the appellations, these are liable.

4.

One who curses by all of them

[by the names of the Lord and by His appellations; that is, who “blesses” the Lord by saying, “May so-and-so strike so-and-so”]

is liable

to death,

the words of Rabbi Meir. And the Sages exempt

the one who “blesses” by the appellations, and do not make him liable to death until he curses by the Explicit Name.

5.

One who curses his father and his mother by all of them—

is liable to death,

the words of Rabbi Meir,

and the Sages exempt

him from death until he curses his father and his mother by the Explicit Name.

6.

One who curses

himself

and his fellow by all of them transgresses a negative commandment,

and is flogged for his curse [and this law applies both according to the Sages and according to Rabbi Meir, for all agree that one is liable to lashes for cursing his fellow by appellations].

7. And if he said to the witnesses:

“May the Lord strike you,”

and likewise if he said to them:

“And likewise may God strike you,”

if you do not come and testify for me! They have been placed under the oath of testimony, for

this is the “oath” written in the Torah

[in the oath of testimony: “And he hears the voice of an oath”].

That is: if he said to the witnesses, “May the Lord strike you with wasting disease,” or with another kind of curse mentioned in the rebuke, it is as though he explicitly said to them, “May the Lord strike you with the oath written in the Torah.” For all the curses mentioned in the rebuke are oaths, as it is written: “According to all the oaths of the covenant.”

Likewise, if someone was reading in the Torah the curses of the rebuke, and the claimant heard and said to the witnesses, “And likewise may God strike you if you do not testify for me,” it is as though he made them hear the language of an oath, and they are liable for it to bring the offering of the oath of testimony.

And if he said to them:

“May He not strike you”

the Lord if you testify for me [whose meaning is: if you do not testify for me, He will indeed strike you], or he said

“May He bless you”

the Lord

“and do good to you”

if you testify for me [whose meaning is that if they do not testify for him, they will be cursed]—

Rabbi Meir makes him liable.

For he holds that from a negative statement you hear an affirmative, and from an affirmative statement you hear a negative.

And the Sages exempt,

although he mentions the name of the Lord, since he did not administer an oath to them explicitly.

Gemara:

And we examine what it teaches at the beginning of the Mishna,

“I administer an oath to you”—

what is it saying?

[For the expression “I administer an oath” refers only to defining the action of the one administering the oath, whereas the language of the oath itself is when the one administering the oath says to the one being sworn that he administers an oath to him by the Lord, or that he administers an oath to him by an oath, or by an oath of imprecation.]

Rav Yehuda said: This is what it is saying:

the one administering the oath says:

“I administer an oath to you by the oath stated in the Torah”

[which is an oath by Him],

“I command you by the command stated in the Torah”

[as stated in the passage of vows: “These are the statutes that the Lord commanded; these are the commandments,” and thereby he is as though mentioning the name of Heaven and administering an oath to them by Him],

“I bind you by the prohibition stated in the Torah”

[which too is as one administering an oath by Him, for He is the One who prohibits these prohibitions].

Abaye said to him

to Rav Yehuda:

“But what of that which Rabbi Hiyya taught,

that even one who says to the witnesses in the language

‘I bind you’ is liable”

for the offering of the oath of testimony—does

“bind” appear in the Torah?

Rather, Abaye said: This is what it is saying:

the one administering the oath says:

“I administer an oath to you by an oath,”

by Him,

“I command you by an oath,”

by Him,

“I bind you by an oath,”

by Him; and concerning this Rabbi Hiyya adds:

“I bind you by an oath”

by Him.

We learned in the Mishna:

“By Alef-Dalet, by Yod-He, by Shaddai, by Tzevaot, by Gracious and Merciful, by Long-suffering, by Abundant Kindness,”

and by all the appellations.

And we examine this:

Does this mean that “Gracious and Merciful” are names

of the Lord

they are,

and not appellations?

And we raise a contradiction: “There are names that may be erased and there are names that may not be erased. These are the names that may not be erased”—

such as: A

l, A

loha, A

lohim, A

loheikhem, A

hayah asher A

hayah, Alef-Dalet, and Yod-He, Shaddai, Tzevaot—

these are names that may not be erased! But “the great, the mighty, the awesome, the majestic, the strong, the powerful, Gracious and Merciful, Long-suffering and Abundant Kindness”—these may be erased,

because they are not names but appellations and descriptions alone. If so, why did the Mishna count the description “Merciful and Gracious” as one of the names of the Holy One, blessed is He?

Abaye said: The Mishna

is dealing with a case in which the intention of the one administering the oath is not to administer an oath by the appellation “Merciful and Gracious,” but rather: “I administer an oath to you

by the One who is Gracious,”