Torah Community Connections

Week 120 - Shabbat - 16 March 2002

SHEVUOT: CHAPTER 4: MISHNAH 13

"I adjure you, '"I command you," or "I bind you," they are liable. "By heaven and by earth," they are exempt. "By Alef-Dalet" or "By Yod-He," "By Shadday," "By Tzevaot," "By the Gracious and Merciful", "By He who is long suffering and of great loving kindness," or by any substituted Name, they are liable. If one blasphemes by any of these he is liable. So R. Meir; but the Sages exempt him. If a person curses his father or mother by any of these he is liable. So R. Meir; but the sages exempt him. If a person curses himself or his fellow by any of these, he transgresses a prohibition. "May G-d smite you," or "Thus may G-d smite you," this is the adjuration (alah) written in the Torah. "May He not smite you," or "May He bless you," or "May He do good unto you," - R. Meir declares him liable, but the Sages exempt them.

Kehati

Concerning the oath of testimony, the Torah states: "And if a person sins, and hears the voice of adjuration" - [Heb., kol alah] - but the word Shevuah - oath - is not mentioned expressly. The baraita (Shevuot 35b) teaches: AIah refers to the expression of an oath, and so it says: "And the priest shall cause the woman to swear with the oath of adjuration [Heb., alah) (Num. 5:21). And whence do we learn that an oath unaccompanied in the Torah by the term alah is like an oath accompanied by the term alah? Because it is said, "And hears the voice of adjuration," [Heb., hol alah] (Lev. 5.1.) This is to be understood as "and hears the voice, and hears the alah", i.e., the term "voice" is redundant since the verse would lack nothing if it merely said "and hears the adjuration." The additional word indicates that the voice alone, i.e., of an oath without the term alah, is also valid. Further, the Gemara says (36a): Whence do we know that the term alah implies an oath? Because it is said: "And brought him under an alah" (Ezek. 17:13) (Nebuchadnezzar put Zedekiah on oath - Rashi), and of this it says "And he also rebelled against King Nebuchadnezzar who had made him swear by G-d" (II Chron. 36:13). This mishnah teaches which expressions of an oath the witnesses are liable for. These are also valid for other oaths.

If a person says to witnesses: "I adjure you" to come and testify for me, or if he said, "I command you," or "I bind you" - the Gemara explains that the word 'oath' must be mentioned, i.e., "I adjure you by an oath," "I command you by an oath," or "I bind you by an oath." Rashi explains: By an oath - he mentions G-d's Name in these expressions, i.e., His Name or any one of the substituted Names, as the mishnah states further on. However, in the opinion of some authorities, it suffices if he says "by an oath" without mentioning any of the Names or substitutes, and likewise, if he mentions G-d's Name or one of the substitutes without the word "oath." If he did adjure the witnesses with one of these expressions, and they denied any knowledge - they are liable - on account of an oath of testimony. But if he said, "By heaven and earth" - that you come and testify for me if you know of any testimony - they are exempt - because it is not a substitute Name for G-d, and there is, consequently, no oath. If he adjured the witnesses "By Alef-Dalet" – G-d's Name as It is pronounced in 'A-d-o-n-a-i' or "By Yod-He" - as pronounced in the Tetragrammaton, or if he adjured them "By Shadday," "By Tzevaot," "By the Gracious and Merciful," "By He Who is Long Suffering and of great loving kindness" or by any substituted Name, they are liable. If one blasphemes by any of these - if a person curses G-d, referring to Him by any of the substitute Names mentioned above - he is liable to death by stoning. So R. Meir - for it is written: "Whoever curses his G-d, shall bear his sin" (Lev. 24:15), and according to R. Meir this verse includes those cursing by use of any of the substitute Names (baraita cited in Shevuot 36a) - but the Sages exempt him - because they hold that: "The blasphemer is not liable unless he pronounces the Name itself" (Sanhedrin 7:5), for it is written: "And he who blasphemes the Name of the Lord, shall surely be put to death" (ibid., 16), while a person who blasphemes by a substitute Name only transgresses a prohibition, as it is written: "You shall not curse," i.e. one of the other Names, as E-l-o-h-i-m (Ex. 22:27). However, with respect to oaths of testimony, the Sages agree with R. Meir that the witnesses are liable whether adjured by the Name or by substitute Names, for it is written there: "And hears a voice of adjuration" (Bartenura).

If a person curses his father or mother by any of these, he is liable - to death by stoning. So R. Meir - who does not differentiate between the Name and its substitutes - but the Sages exempt him - from stoning, for they hold that "Whoever curses his father or his mother is not liable (to stoning) unless he curses them with the Name" (Sanhedrin 8:8).

If a person curses himself or his fellow by any of these substitute Names, he transgresses a prohibition: he who curses himself - as it is written: "Only take heed of yourself and guard your soul diligently" (Deut. 4:9), and wherever the Torah says "take heed," "lest" or "not," a prohibition is indicated; he who curses his fellow - as it is written: "You shall not curse the deaf" (Lev. 19:14). The prohibition is understood by the Sages to refer to all people (see Sanhedrin 66a). If the claimant says to each of the witnesses: "May G-d smite you" - if you do not testify for me - or, "Thus may G-d smite you" - i.e., he heard someone reading the verse in the chapter of admonition in the Torah: "The Lord shall smite you with consumption..." (Deut. 28:22), and he said to each of the witnesses: "Thus may G-d smite you if you do not testify for me" (Rashi; but Tosefot Yom Tov here quotes a different version and interpretation) - this is the adjuration written in the Torah - "and will hear the voice of adjuration," for which one is liable for the oath of testimony. "May He not smite you," - if you testify for me - or, "May He bless you" - may G-d bless you if you testify for me - or "May He do good unto you" - may G-d do good unto you if you testify for me - R. Meir declares him liable - because the positive statement is inferred from the negative one, viz., may He not smite you if you testify for me, but may He smite you if you do not, or, may He bless you if you testify for me, but may He curse you if you do not. This, according to R. Meir's view, is included in, "and hears the voice of adjuration" - But the Sages exempt them, for it is written, "and hears the voice of adjuration - alah - whose primary meaning is connected with the root to curse, but not when he hears a blessing implying a curse (R. Nissim in the name of Ramban.) The halakhah follows the view of the Sages in all the instances of this mishnah.

SHEVUOT: CHAPTER 5: MISHNAH 1

The oath of deposit applies to men and women, and to relatives, to those who are fit and to those who are unfit, before a court and not before a court, when uttered on his own volition. But if by others, he is not liable unless he denies it before a court; So R. Meir. But the Sages say: Whether on his own volition or by others, since he denied it, he is liable. And he is liable if he swore willfully, or in error but willfully denying the deposit; but he is not liable for unwitting transgression. And to what is he liable for willful transgression? A guilt offering of the value of two shekels of silver.

Kehati

This chapter deals in detail with the oath of deposit. As explained at the beginning of this Tractate, a person who falsely denies on oath that his fellow's bailment, loan, stolen property etc., is in his possession, is guilty of transgressing the law concerning the oath of deposit, so called in keeping with the verse: "If a person sins and commits a trespass against the lord, and lies to his neighbor about a deposit..." (Lev. 5:21). The subject of the oath of deposit and its liabilities are stated in the following verses there, and the details will be explained in the order they appear in this chapter. The first mishnah of the chapter harks back to that of the previous chapter, where we learned: "The law of the oath of testimony applies to men but not to women, to non-relatives but not to relatives, to those fit but not to those unfit. This mishnah emphasizes that unlike the oath of testimony, the oath of deposit applies to all, as do declarative and vain oaths (Chapter 3:10,11).

The oath of deposit applies to men and women - a woman who denies holding a deposit or a loan and perjures herself, is liable on account of an oath of deposit - to non-relatives and relatives - related to the owner of the deposit or to the creditor - to those who are fit and to those who are unfit - persons disqualified to testify because they committed transgressions (see Sanhedrin 3:3) are also liable for the oath of deposit - before a court and not before a court, when uttered on his own volition - if the defendant swore, or was adjured and replied "Amen," he is liable for the oath of deposit, irrespective of whether he swore before a court or not - but if adjured by others - and he did not reply with "Amen," e.g., if the claimant said to the defendant: "I adjure you to return my deposit to me," and the defendant replied: "1 have nothing of yours" - he is not liable - for an oath of deposit - unless he denies it before a court; so R. Meir - who holds that since the Torah does not specifically mention the case of adjuration in the section of the oath of deposit, and this is derived from the law of the oath of testimony, it applies only in the same way as does the oath of testimony, i.e., if the denial takes place before a court, the halakhic principle being, "deduce from it, and [entirely] from it" - Gemara.

But the Sages say: Whether on his own volition or adjured by others, since he denied it, he is liable - even if he did not deny it before a court, for the Sages hold that since the voluntary oath of deposit does not have to be made before a court, the same is true of his adjuration by others. Although the instance of adjuration is deduced from the oath of testimony, its detailed application is derived from what is known with respect to the oath of deposit, hence the denial does not have to take place before a court, the halakhic principle being, "deduce from it and establish it in its own place" - Gemara. And he is liable if he swore willfully - i.e., if, while swearing, he knew that he was in possession of the money, deposit, loan, stolen property etc., of the other person, but perjured himself, and he also knew that he would be liable for an offering on account of this - or in error but willfully denying the deposit - i.e. he did not know he would be liable for an offering for this oath, but remembered having in his possession his fellow's property, and denied it - but he is not liable for unwitting transgression - if he thought he was swearing truthfully, having forgotten that his fellow's deposit was in his possession or that he had borrowed money from him, etc., he is not liable because he did not know that he was swearing falsely. Likewise, he is not liable if he did not know that it was forbidden to take such an oath.

And to what is he liable for willful transgression? - for willful perjury, or when in ignorance of the liability for an offering, but willfully denying the deposit? A guilt offering of the value of two shekels of silver - an offering of the minimal value of two shekels, i.e. two selas (the sela of the Mishnah corresponds to the shekel of the Torah) as it is written: And he shall bring his guilt offering to the Lord, a ram without blemish out of the flock, according to the value of a guilt offering, to the priest" (Lev. 5:25). The Sages deduce the minimal value of the guilt offering from the section on sacrilege where the Torah says: a ram without blemish out of the flock, by value of silver shekels, after the shekel of the Sanctuary, for a guilt offering" (ibid.,15); shekels implies at least two. However, the offering does not bestow atonement for the oath unless he first made restitution to the owners, for the passage says: "...he shall restore that which he took violently away, or the thing which he has deceitfully acquired, or that which was delivered to him to keep..." Furthermore, he is obliged to add one fifth, i.e. one quarter of the principal (which becomes a fifth of the new amount, principal plus a quarter) as it is written: "He shall restore it in the principal, and shall add a fifth to it." (ibid., 24). However, payment of the additional fifth is not indispensable for atonement, and if he brought the offering before paying it, he is atoned.

Return to Mishna Yomit Index

Visit the Mishna Yomit Archives