Commentary page

Shevuot 30a

This page gathers the commentary on one source unit: the classic commentaries as they are printed, the sources the text cites, the sages named in it and direct links back to the text.

Read the full text in the reader

Babylonian Talmud · folio map

Shevuot 30a

Shevuot 30a. The full printed text of this folio side — 14 numbered segments, about 408 words — with the classic commentaries printed on the page.

Original text

Segment 1

מַתְנִי׳ שְׁבוּעַת הָעֵדוּת נוֹהֶגֶת בַּאֲנָשִׁים וְלֹא בְּנָשִׁים, בִּרְחוֹקִין וְלֹא בִּקְרוֹבִין, בִּכְשֵׁרִין וְלֹא בִּפְסוּלִין; וְאֵינָהּ נוֹהֶגֶת אֶלָּא בִּרְאוּיִן לְהָעִיד.

MISHNA: The oath of testimony is practiced with regard to men but not with regard to women, with regard to non-relatives of the litigants but not with regard to relatives, with regard to those fit to testify but not with regard to those unfit to testify due to a transgression that they performed. And the oath of testimony is practiced only with regard to those fit to testify.

Segment 2

בִּפְנֵי בֵּית דִּין וְשֶׁלֹּא בִּפְנֵי בֵּית דִּין – מִפִּי עַצְמוֹ, וּמִפִּי אֲחֵרִים אֵין חַיָּיבִין עַד שֶׁיִּכְפְּרוּ בָּהֶן בְּבֵית דִּין. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: בֵּין מִפִּי עַצְמוֹ וּבֵין מִפִּי אֲחֵרִים – אֵינָן חַיָּיבִין עַד שֶׁיִּכְפְּרוּ בָּהֶן בְּבֵית דִּין.

The oath of testimony is practiced both in the presence of a court and not in the presence of a court, when the potential witness takes the oath on his own. But if the oath is administered by others and those denying that they witnessed the incident in question neither take an oath nor answer amen to the administered oath, they are not liable until they deny any knowledge of the incident in question in court. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: Whether one of the witnesses takes the oath on his own or whether the oath is administered by others, the witnesses are not liable until they deny any knowledge of the incident in question before the litigants in court.

Segment 3

וְחַיָּיבִין עַל זְדוֹן הַשְּׁבוּעָה, וְעַל שִׁגְגָתָהּ עִם זְדוֹן הָעֵדוּת, וְאֵינָן חַיָּיבִין עַל שִׁגְגָתָהּ. וּמָה הֵן חַיָּיבִין עַל זְדוֹן הַשְּׁבוּעָה? קׇרְבַּן עוֹלֶה וְיוֹרֵד.

And one is liable for the act of taking a false oath with intent and for an unwitting act of taking a false oath, i.e., he is unaware of the liability for taking a false oath, provided that he takes the oath with intent in terms of the testimony, i.e., he takes an oath that he has no knowledge of the matter even though he knows that he witnessed the incident. But witnesses are not liable for taking the oath if they were unwitting in terms of the testimony, i.e., they believe that they have no knowledge of the matter. And what are they liable for by taking a false oath with intent? They are liable to bring a sliding-scale offering.

Segment 4

גְּמָ׳ מְנָהָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וְעָמְדוּ שְׁנֵי הָאֲנָשִׁים״ – בְּעֵדִים הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר.

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that the oath of testimony is not practiced with regard to women because they are unfit to testify. The Gemara asks: From where is this matter, that women do not testify, derived? The Gemara answers: It is as the Sages taught in a baraita : When the verse states: “If an unrighteous witness rises up against any man… then the two men shall stand” (Deuteronomy 19:16–17), it is with regard to witnesses that the verse is speaking. Apparently, men, not women, may testify.

Segment 5

אַתָּה אוֹמֵר בְּעֵדִים, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא בְּבַעֲלֵי דִינִין? כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר ״אֲשֶׁר לָהֶם הָרִיב״ – הֲרֵי בַּעֲלֵי דִינִין אָמוּר; הָא מָה אֲנִי מְקַיֵּים ״וְעָמְדוּ שְׁנֵי הָאֲנָשִׁים״? בְּעֵדִים הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר. וְאִם נַפְשְׁךָ לוֹמַר: נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״שְׁנֵי״ וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן ״שְׁנֵי״; מָה לְהַלָּן בְּעֵדִים, אַף כָּאן בְּעֵדִים.

The baraita continues: Do you say that it is with regard to witnesses, or perhaps it is only with regard to litigants that the verse is speaking? When it states: “Between whom the controversy is” (Deuteronomy 19:17), the litigants are already stated in the verse. How do I realize the meaning of the phrase “then the two men shall stand”? Apparently, it is with regard to witnesses that the verse is speaking. And if it is your wish to say that this is not a proof, another proof may be cited. It is stated here: “The two men,” and it is stated there: “On the basis of two witnesses” (Deuteronomy 19:15); just as there, it is with regard to witnesses that the verse speaks, so too here, it is with regard to witnesses that the verse speaks.

Segment 6

מַאי ״אִם נַפְשְׁךָ לוֹמַר״? וְכִי תֵּימָא: מִדְּלָא כְּתִב ״וַאֲשֶׁר לָהֶם הָרִיב״– כּוּלֵּיהּ קְרָא בְּבַעֲלֵי דִינִין מִשְׁתַּעֵי; נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״שְׁנֵי״ וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן ״שְׁנֵי״, מָה לְהַלָּן בְּעֵדִים אַף כָּאן בְּעֵדִים.

The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the statement of the baraita : And if it is your wish to say? Why is the initial proof inadequate? The Gemara answers: And if you would say that from the fact that the verse did not write: Then the two men and those between whom the controversy is shall stand, which would indicate that the verse changes its focus from the witnesses to the litigants, perhaps throughout the entire verse it is with regard to litigants that it is speaking. Therefore, the tanna cites an additional proof. It is stated here: “The two men,” and it is stated there: “On the basis of two witnesses”; just as there, it is with regard to witnesses that the verse speaks, so too here, it is with regard to witnesses that the verse speaks.

Segment 7

תַּנְיָא אִידַּךְ: ״וְעָמְדוּ שְׁנֵי הָאֲנָשִׁים״ – בְּעֵדִים הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר בְּעֵדִים, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא בְּבַעֲלֵי דִינִין? אָמְרַתְּ: וְכִי שְׁנַיִם בָּאִים לְדִין, שְׁלֹשָׁה אֵין בָּאִין לָדִין?! וְאִם נַפְשְׁךָ לוֹמַר: נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״שְׁנֵי״ וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן ״שְׁנֵי״, מָה לְהַלָּן בְּעֵדִים, אַף כָּאן בְּעֵדִים.

It is taught in another baraita : When the verse states: “Then the two men shall stand,” it is with regard to witnesses that the verse is speaking. The baraita continues: Do you say that it is with regard to witnesses, or perhaps it is only with regard to litigants that the verse is speaking? The tanna asks: Did you say that? If the reference is to litigants, why does the verse mention two? Do two people come to court for judgment but three people do not come to court for judgment? And if it is your wish to say that this is not a proof, another proof may be cited. It is stated here: “The two men,” and it is stated there: “On the basis of two witnesses”; just as there, it is with regard to witnesses that the verse speaks, so too here, it is with regard to witnesses that the verse speaks.

Segment 8

מַאי ״אִם נַפְשְׁךָ לוֹמַר״? וְכִי תֵּימָא: בְּתוֹבֵעַ וְנִתְבָּע קָא מִשְׁתַּעֵי קְרָא; נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״שְׁנֵי״ וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן ״שְׁנֵי״, מָה לְהַלָּן בְּעֵדִים אַף כָּאן בְּעֵדִים.

The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: And if it is your wish to say? Why is the initial proof inadequate? The Gemara answers: And if you would say that even though there are cases where there are more than two litigants, it is with regard to a plaintiff and a defendant that the verse is speaking. Therefore, the tanna cites an additional proof. It is stated here: “The two men,” and it is stated there: “On the basis of two witnesses”; just as there, it is with regard to witnesses that the verse speaks, so too here, it is with regard to witnesses that the verse speaks.

Segment 9

תַּנְיָא אִידַּךְ: ״וְעָמְדוּ שְׁנֵי הָאֲנָשִׁים״ – בְּעֵדִים הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר בְּעֵדִים, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא בְּבַעֲלֵי דִינִין? אָמְרַתְּ: וְכִי אֲנָשִׁים בָּאִין לַדִּין, נָשִׁים אֵין בָּאוֹת לַדִּין?! וְאִם נַפְשְׁךָ לוֹמַר: נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״שְׁנֵי״ וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן ״שְׁנֵי״, מָה לְהַלָּן בְּעֵדִים אַף כָּאן בְּעֵדִים.

It is taught in another baraita : When the verse states: “Then the two men shall stand,” it is with regard to witnesses that the verse is speaking. The baraita continues: Do you say that it is with regard to witnesses, or perhaps it is only with regard to litigants that the verse is speaking? The tanna asks: Did you say that? If the reference is to litigants, why does the verse mention men? Do men come to court for judgment but women do not come to court for judgment? And if it is your wish to say that this is not a proof, another proof may be cited. It is stated here: “The two men,” and it is stated there: “On the basis of two witnesses”; just as there, it is with regard to witnesses that the verse speaks, so too here, it is with regard to witnesses that the verse speaks.

Segment 10

מַאי ״אִם נַפְשְׁךָ לוֹמַר״? וְכִי תֵּימָא: אִשָּׁה לָאו אוֹרְחַהּ, מִשּׁוּם ״כׇּל כְּבוּדָּה בַת מֶלֶךְ פְּנִימָה״; נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״שְׁנֵי״ וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן ״שְׁנֵי״, מָה לְהַלָּן בְּעֵדִים אַף כָּאן בְּעֵדִים.

The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: And if it is your wish to say? Why is the initial proof inadequate? The Gemara answers that it means: And if you would say that with regard to a woman, it is not typical conduct for her to appear in court due to the verse that is stated with regard to women: “All the glory of the king’s daughter is within” (Psalms 45:14), and that is why the verse addressed a situation that is prevalent, i.e., a case where the litigants are men, and there is no proof that women are unfit for testimony. Therefore, the tanna cites an additional proof. It is stated here: “The two men,” and it is stated there: “On the basis of two witnesses”; just as there, it is with regard to witnesses that the verse speaks, so too here, it is with regard to witnesses that the verse speaks.

Segment 11

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וְעָמְדוּ שְׁנֵי הָאֲנָשִׁים״ – מִצְוָה לְבַעֲלֵי דִינִין שֶׁיַּעַמְדוּ. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: שָׁמַעְתִּי שֶׁאִם רָצוּ לְהוֹשִׁיב אֶת שְׁנֵיהֶם – מוֹשִׁיבִין; אֵיזֶהוּ אָסוּר? שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא אֶחָד עוֹמֵד וְאֶחָד יוֹשֵׁב, אֶחָד מְדַבֵּר כׇּל צָרְכּוֹ וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר לוֹ ״קַצֵּר דְּבָרֶיךָ״.

§ The Gemara cites another interpretation of the verse. The Sages taught: “Then the two men shall stand”; this indicates that there is a mitzva for the litigants to stand during the court proceedings. Rabbi Yehuda said: I heard that if the judges wished to seat both of the litigants, they may seat them. What, then, is prohibited for the judges? They must ensure that there will not be a situation where one litigant is standing and one litigant is sitting, or a situation where one litigant says everything that he needs to say to present his case and one litigant, the judge says to him: Curtail your statement.

Segment 12

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״בְּצֶדֶק תִּשְׁפֹּט עֲמִיתֶךָ״ – שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא אֶחָד יוֹשֵׁב וְאֶחָד עוֹמֵד, אֶחָד מְדַבֵּר כׇּל צָרְכּוֹ וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר לוֹ: ״קַצֵּר דְּבָרֶיךָ״. דָּבָר אַחֵר: ״בְּצֶדֶק תִּשְׁפֹּט עֲמִיתֶךָ״ – הֱוֵי דָּן אֶת חֲבֵירְךָ לְכַף זְכוּת.

The Sages taught: The verse states: “But in righteousness shall you judge your colleague” (Leviticus 19:15), from which it is derived: The court must ensure that there will not be a situation where one litigant is sitting and one litigant is standing, or a situation where one litigant says everything that he needs to say to present his case and one litigant, the judge says to him: Curtail your statement. Alternatively, it is derived from the verse: “But in righteousness shall you judge your colleague,” that you should judge another favorably, and seek to find justification for his actions, even if when interpreted differently his actions could be judged unfavorably.

Segment 13

תָּנֵי רַב יוֹסֵף: ״בְּצֶדֶק תִּשְׁפֹּט עֲמִיתֶךָ״ – עִם שֶׁאִתְּךָ בְּתוֹרָה וּבְמִצְוֹת, הִשְׁתַּדֵּל לְדוּנוֹ יָפֶה.

Rav Yosef teaches that from the verse: “But in righteousness shall you judge your colleague [ amitekha ],” it is derived: With regard to one who is with you [ im she’itekha ] in observance of Torah and in fulfillment of mitzvot, try to judge him favorably, in the manner that the Gemara will now explain.

Segment 14

רַב עוּלָּא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב עִילַּאי הֲוָה לֵיהּ דִּינָא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן. שְׁלַח לֵיהּ רַב יוֹסֵף: עוּלָּא חֲבֵרֵנוּ עָמִית בְּתוֹרָה וּבְמִצְוֹת. אָמַר: לְמַאי שְׁלַח לִי? לְחַנּוֹפֵי לֵיהּ?! הֲדַר אָמַר: לְמִישְׁרֵא בְּתִיגְרֵיהּ,

The Gemara relates: Rav Ulla, son of Rav Ilai, had a trial pending before Rav Naḥman. Rav Yosef sent a message to Rav Naḥman: Ulla our friend is a colleague in Torah and mitzvot, with regard to whom the verse states that you should judge him favorably. Rav Naḥman said: For what purpose did he send this message to me? Does he expect me to grant him preferential treatment? Every judgment must be undertaken with righteousness. Rav Naḥman then said: Rav Yosef sent me the message to ensure I would open with Rav Ulla’s dispute in the event that other cases come before me for judgment, in deference to the Torah because he is a Torah scholar.

Shevuot 30a

Shevuot 30a

Rashi

Tosafot

Rabbeinu Chananel

Rashba

Ritva

Meiri

Maharsha (Chidushei Halachot)

Gilyon HaShas

Ben Yehoyada

What this page contains

Continue the sequence

Parallel sources

Lessons and study tools

Sages named on this page

Original text