Shevuot 35a (לה.) — the Talmud in English

And we answer:

This is why the Merciful One wrote

the law of the oath of testimony

alongside the oath of utterance and alongside the impurity of the Temple and its sacred things [

in the same passage]

because in all of them it is stated

that

“and it was concealed,” whereas here

in the case of testimony

it is not stated, “and it was concealed.”

This teaches you

to impose liability for an intentional act as for an unintentional one

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 fulfill his promise,

“and did not give it to me”—

they are exempt, as one is liable

for an oath of testimony

only for a monetary claim, as in the case of a deposit,

for had they testified, they would have obligated him to pay; but one is not liable for a claim based on the fulfillment of a promise.

2.

“I administer an oath to you that, when you come to know testimony concerning me,”

in the future,

“you will come and testify for me”—

they 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 there,

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

they are exempt,

because he did not designate the witnesses but addressed the public as a whole.

4.

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

and the witnesses answered him:

“It is an oath that we do not know testimony concerning you.” And they

indeed

knew testimony concerning him,

but that testimony was testimony of

one witness reporting what another witness had said, or one of them was a relative or disqualified—

they are exempt,

for they are not fit to give testimony. [Even if there were two fit witnesses and the third was disqualified—Tosafot.]

5.

The claimant sent

his slave

to administer an oath to the witnesses,

or

the defendant said to them

himself:

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

the claimant,

“you will come and testify for him”—

they are exempt,

because liability for an oath of testimony applies

only once they hear it from the claimant

himself.

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 are liable? The verse states: “He sins

—he sins,” by means of a gzera shava

from the oath of a deposit.

It is stated here,

in the oath of testimony,

“he sins,” and it is stated there,

in the oath of a deposit,

“he sins.” Just as there, it concerns a monetary claim, and he has money

with his fellow, rather than merely a promise,

so too here, it concerns 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 concerning me in the future,” etc.

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

Is this not obvious

that the case is one in which his witnesses were among them? For if his witnesses were not among them, who could become liable, and why would the Mishna need to exempt them?

And we answer:

It is necessary in a case where the claimant was standing over them,

standing near the witnesses.

Lest you say

that his standing near them signifies

that it is as though he had said it to them, it teaches us

that he must explicitly designate them!

It was taught likewise,

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

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

without designating the witnesses, but merely standing near them:

“I administer an oath to you: If you know testimony concerning me, you will come and testify for me. Could it be that they are liable?”—

The verse states: “And he is a witness”

—the witness must be designated;

but

this person

did not designate his witnesses

but merely stood near them.

Could it be even if he said, “All who are standing here” [

meaning: all those standing nearby],

the verse states: “And he is a witness,” but he did designate his witnesses

by saying, “All who are standing here,” meaning all those standing near me!

We learned in the Mishna:

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

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

that was testimony of

one witness reporting what another witness had said, or one of them was a relative or disqualified—could it be that they are liable?”—

The verse states: “If he does not testify, 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 him 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 concerning him,’

the claimant,

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

And we inquire about 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,

with the word “lo” written defectively for purposes of exposition—“not to him”; and this is how we read it:

“If to him,”

the claimant,

“he does not testify, he shall bear his iniquity,”

but

“if to another,”

one who is not the claimant,

he does not testify—

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 by a prohibition,” they are liable. [The Gemara explains that he said, “I command you by an oath,” or “I bind you by a prohibition by an oath.”]

2. Witnesses who were adjured

by Heaven and by earth,

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

they are exempt.

3. But if he administered an oath to the witnesses

with

the name

Aleph-Dalet—

Nun-Yod, or

Yod-Heh—

Vav-Heh,

by Shaddai, by Tzevaot, by Hanun ve-Rahum, by Erekh Appayim, by Rav Hesed, or by any of the appellations, they are liable.

4.

One who curses using all of them [

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

is liable

for death,

the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Sages exempt

one who “blesses” God using appellations; they impose the death penalty on him only when he curses using the Explicit Name.

5.

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

is liable to death,

the statement of Rabbi Meir,

but the Sages exempt

him from death unless he curses his father and mother using the Explicit Name.

6.

One who curses

himself

or his fellow using all of them transgresses a prohibition,

and he receives lashes for his curse [this law applies both according to the Sages and according to Rabbi Meir, as all agree that one who curses his fellow using appellations is liable to lashes].

7. And if he said to the witnesses:

“May the Lord strike you,”

and likewise if he said to them:

“So may Elohim strike you,”

if you do not come and testify for me, they have been adjured with an oath of testimony, because

this is the “oath” written in the Torah [

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

That is: if he said to the witnesses, “May the Lord strike you with wasting disease,” or with another type of curse mentioned in the tokheha, 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 tokheha are oaths, as it is written: “According to all the oaths of the covenant.”

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

And if he said to them:

“May He not strike you”

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

“May He bless you”

the Lord

“and do good to you”

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

Rabbi Meir holds them liable.

For he holds that from a negative statement one can infer a positive one, and from a positive statement one can infer a negative one.

But the Sages exempt them,

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

Gemara:

And we inquire concerning that which is taught at the beginning of the Mishna:

“I administer an oath to you”—

what is it saying? [The expression “I administer an oath” refers only to defining the action of the one administering the oath, whereas the wording of the oath itself is when he says to the person being adjured that he adjures him by God, or that he adjures him by an oath, or by an oath.]

Rav Yehuda said: This is what it is saying:

the one administering the oath says:

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

which is an oath by God],

“I command you with the command stated in the Torah” [

as stated in the passage concerning vows: “These are the statutes that the Lord commanded, these are the mitzvot”; by this he is considered to mention the name of Heaven and administer an oath to them by it],

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

this too is equivalent to administering an oath by God, for He is the One who prohibits these matters].

Abaye said to him

Rav Yehuda:

“But regarding that which Rabbi Hiyya taught,

that even one who says to the witnesses in the language,

‘I bind you,’ they are liable

to bring the offering for an oath of testimony—how can it be that

‘binding’ is written 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 God,

“I command you by an oath”

by God,

“I bind you by an oath”

by God; and concerning this Rabbi Hiyya adds:

“I bind you by an oath”

by God.

We learned in the Mishna:

“By Aleph-Dalet, by Yod-Heh, by Shaddai, by Tzevaot, by Hanun ve-Rahum, by Erekh Appayim, by Rav Hesed,”

and by all the appellations.

And we inquire concerning this:

Does this mean that “Hanun ve-Rahum” are names

of the Lord

themselves,

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: El,

Eloah,

Elohim,

Eloheikhem,

Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh,

Ehyeh,

Aleph-Dalet, Yod-Heh, Shaddai, Tzevaot—

these are names that may not be erased! But “the great, the mighty, the awesome, the mighty, the strong, the powerful, the mighty, Hanun ve-Rahum, Erekh Appayim, and Rav Hesed”—these may be erased,

because they are not names, but appellations and descriptions בלבד. If so, why did the Mishna count the description “Rahum ve-Hanun” as one of the names of the Holy One, blessed be He?

Abaye said: The Mishna

is dealing with a case where the one administering the oath does not intend to administer it by the appellation “Rahum ve-Hanun,” but rather says: “I administer an oath to you

by the One who is compassionate,”