Talmud - Shevu'ot 36b שבועות ל״ו ב׳

Rather, nevertheless, reverse the attribution of the opinions in the mishna and say that Rabbi Meir deems the witness exempt from liability for an oath of testimony, as even in ritual matters, Rabbi Meir does not accept the principle: From a negative statement you can infer a positive statement.

Ravina objects to this: And in ritual matters, does Rabbi Meir not accept the principle? But if that is so, with regard to the halakha that priests who perform the Temple service while intoxicated with wine, and priests who perform the Temple service with overgrown hair on their head, who, based on this principle, are liable to receive death at the hand of Heaven, so too does Rabbi Meir not accept this principle? But didn’t we learn in a baraita: And these are they who are liable to receive death at the hand of Heaven: Priests who perform the Temple service while intoxicated with wine and priests who perform the Temple service with overgrown hair on their head, and Rabbi Meir does not disagree with that ruling?

Rather, actually reverse the attribution of the opinions in the mishna and say that Rabbi Meir deems the witness exempt from liability for an oath of testimony. When Rabbi Meir does not accept that principle, it is only in cases involving monetary matters; but in cases involving ritual matters, he accepts the principle. That is the reason he does not dispute the halakha in the baraita with regard to a priest intoxicated with wine or with overgrown hair on his head. And the reason that he does not accept the principle: From a negative statement you can infer a positive statement, in the case of sota is that sota is different because it is a ritual matter in which there are ramifications involving monetary matters, i.e., payment of the marriage contract. The same is true with regard to an oath of testimony in the mishna; although it is a ritual matter, it is a ritual matter with ramifications involving monetary matters.

MISHNA: One who takes a false oath denying that he is in possession of an item that another deposited with him is liable to return the item with an additional one-fifth of its value and to bring a guilt-offering (see Leviticus 5:20–26). The halakhot of an oath on a deposit apply to men and to women, to non-relatives and to relatives, i.e., even if the owner of the deposit and the purported bailee are related, to those fit to serve as witnesses and to those disqualified from doing so.

These halakhot apply when the oath is taken in the presence of a court and when taken not in the presence of a court, as long as the oath is taken on his own, i.e., stated by the defendant himself. But if the oath is administered by others, he is not liable unless he denies the claim in court; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

And the Rabbis say: Both when the defendant takes an oath on his own and when the oath is administered by others, once he has falsely denied the claim against him, he is liable to bring a guilt-offering and to pay restitution and an additional one-fifth, even if the oath was not administered in the presence of a court.

And one is liable to bring an offering for intentionally taking a false oath on a deposit and for unwittingly taking a false oath about the intentional misappropriation of the deposit, i.e., if one knowingly took a false oath but was unaware that he is liable to bring an offering for taking the oath. But he is not liable for unwittingly taking a false oath by itself, where he mistakenly thought that he did not owe anything. And what is he liable for when he intentionally takes a false oath? He must bring a guilt-offering worth at least two silver shekels.

The mishna continues: What is the case of an oath on a deposit? It is where the claimant said to the defendant: Give me my deposit, which is in your possession, and the defendant replied: On my oath nothing of yours is in my possession; or the defendant said to him: Nothing of yours is in my possession, the claimant responded: I administer an oath to you, and the defendant said: Amen. In either case this defendant is liable to bring a guilt-offering if he lied.

If the claimant administered an oath to him five times, whether in the presence of a court or not in the presence of a court, and the defendant falsely denied each claim, he is liable to bring a guilt-offering for each and every denial. Rabbi Shimon said: What is the reason? It is due to the fact that he is able to retract and confess after each oath and repay the claimant. Since he did not do so, each oath is considered a separate denial of a monetary claim.

If five people were suing him and they said to him: Give us back our deposit that is in your possession, and the defendant says: On my oath nothing of yours is in my possession, he is liable for only one false oath. But if he responds to each claimant: On my oath nothing of yours is in my possession, and nothing of yours, and nothing of yours, he is liable for his oath concerning each and every claim that he denied. Rabbi Eliezer says: He is not liable for his oath concerning each claim unless he says: On my oath, at the end of the denial, i.e., he says: Nothing of yours is in my possession, and nothing of yours, on my oath, so that it is clear that he is taking an oath to each one. Rabbi Shimon says: He is not liable for his oath concerning each claim unless he says: On my oath, to each and every claimant, i.e., he says: On my oath nothing of yours is in my possession, and on my oath nothing of yours, to each claimant separately.

In a case where the claimant said: Give me back my deposit, and pledge, stolen item, and lost item that are in your possession, and the defendant responds: On my oath nothing of yours is in my possession, he is liable for only one false oath. But if he responds: On my oath I do not have in my possession your deposit, or pledge, stolen item, or lost item, he is liable for his oath concerning each and every claim.

In a case where the claimant said: Give me back my wheat, and barley, and spelt that are in your possession, if the defendant responds: On my oath nothing of yours is in my possession, he is liable for only one false oath. But if he responds: On my oath I do not have in my possession your wheat, barley, or spelt, he is liable for his oath concerning each and every claim. Rabbi Meir says: Even if the defendant says: On my oath I do not have in my possession your grain of wheat, or grain of barley, or grain of spelt, he is liable for his oath concerning each and every claim.

The mishna continues: If one accuses another: You raped or you seduced my daughter, and the other says: I did not rape and I did not seduce your daughter, to which the father replied: I administer an oath to you, and the defendant said: Amen, the defendant is liable to bring a guilt-offering if it is a false oath. Rabbi Shimon deems him exempt, since one does not pay a fine based on his own admission. Had he confessed he would have been exempt from paying the fine; he is therefore not liable for his denial. The Rabbis said to him: Even though he does not pay the fine based on his own admission, he does pay compensation for humiliation and compensation for degradation resulting from her being raped or seduced, which are monetary claims and not fines, based on his own admission. He is therefore liable for a false oath, as he denied a monetary claim.

Similarly, in a case where one person accuses another: You stole my ox, and the defendant says: I did not steal your ox, if the claimant replied: I administer an oath to you, and the defendant said: Amen, he is liable to pay for the ox due to the theft and to bring a guilt-offering if he lied, since by his oath he is denying that he owes the value of the ox that he would have to pay if he admitted to stealing it. But in a case where the claimant accuses the defendant of stealing the ox and slaughtering or selling it, and the defendant says: I stole the ox, but I did not slaughter or sell it, and this is a lie, if the claimant replied: I administer an oath to you, and he said: Amen, then the defendant is exempt from the fivefold payment for slaughtering or selling another’s ox, since it is a fine.

If the claimant says: Your ox killed my ox, and the defendant lies and says: It did not kill your ox, to which the claimant replied: I administer an oath to you, and he said: Amen, then he is liable for his false oath. But if the claimant says: Your ox killed my Canaanite slave and you are therefore liable to pay me a fine of thirty shekels, and he lies and says: It did not kill your slave, to which the claimant replied: I administer an oath to you, and he said: Amen, then he is exempt, because payment for the slave is a fine.

If the claimant said to him: You injured me and caused me a wound, and the defendant says: I did not injure you and I did not cause you a wound, to which the claimant replies: I administer an oath to you, and he said: Amen, he is liable. But if one’s Canaanite slave said to him: You knocked out my tooth, or: You blinded my eye, and you are therefore required to emancipate me, and he says: I did not knock out your tooth, or: I did not blind your eye, to which the slave replies: I administer an oath to you, and he said: Amen, he is exempt from bringing a guilt-offering even though he lied, since the obligation to emancipate one’s slave in these cases is a penalty.

This is the principle: For any claim that the defendant would have to pay based on his own admission, he is liable to bring a guilt-offering for taking a false oath concerning that claim. And for any claim that he would not pay based on his own admission but would pay only by the testimony of witnesses, he is exempt from bringing a guilt-offering for taking a false oath concerning that claim.

GEMARA: Rav Aḥa bar Huna and Rav Shmuel, son of Rabba bar bar Ḥana, and Rav Yitzḥak, son of Rav Yehuda, studied tractate Shevuot in the study hall of Rabba. Rav Kahana encountered them and inquired with regard to a matter in the mishna. He said

Traduction : The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren Noé Talmud, with commentary by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz.

Shevuot 36b examines Rabbi Meir's position on inferring positive rulings from negative statements, distinguishing monetary cases from ritual ones like sota and intoxicated priests.