Shevuot 35a

לְהָכִי כַּתְבַהּ רַחֲמָנָא לְעֵדוּת גַּבֵּי שְׁבוּעַת בִּיטּוּי וְגַבֵּי טוּמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וְקָדָשָׁיו – דִּבְכוּלָּן נֶאֱמַר בָּהֶן ״וְנֶעְלַם״, וְכָאן לֹא נֶאֱמַר בָּהֶן ״וְנֶעְלַם״; לְחַיֵּיב עַל הַמֵּזִיד כַּשּׁוֹגֵג.

The Gemara answers: For that reason, the Merciful One writes the verse with regard to an oath of testimony near the verse with regard to an oath on an utterance and near the verse with regard to the defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods, as in all of those passages it is stated concerning them: “And it is hidden,” and here, with regard to an oath of testimony, it is not stated concerning them: And it is hidden. The Torah did so to underscore the contrast between them and to deem liable one who takes an intentional false oath of testimony like one who takes an unwitting false oath of testimony.

מַתְנִי׳ ״מַשְׁבִּיעַ אֲנִי עֲלֵיכֶם, אִם לֹא תָבוֹאוּ וּתְעִידוּנִי שֶׁאָמַר אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי לִיתֵּן לִי מָאתַיִם זוּז וְלֹא נָתַן״ – הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ פְּטוּרִים, שֶׁאֵין חַיָּיבִין אֶלָּא עַל תְּבִיעַת מָמוֹן כְּפִקָּדוֹן.

MISHNA: If one said to witnesses: I administer an oath to you concerning your refusal to testify if you do not come and testify on my behalf that so-and-so said he is going to give me two hundred dinars and he did not give them to me, and they take false oaths that they have no knowledge of the matter, they are exempt from liability to bring an offering for taking a false oath of testimony, as one is liable for taking a false oath of testimony only in a case involving a monetary claim like a deposit in the sense that were the witnesses to testify, the individual would be liable to pay. In the case of a promise to give a gift he could claim that he merely reconsidered.

״מַשְׁבִּיעַ אֲנִי עֲלֵיכֶם כְּשֶׁתֵּדְעוּ לִי עֵדוּת שֶׁתָּבוֹאוּ וּתְעִידוּנִי״ – הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ פְּטוּרִים, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁקָּדְמָה שְׁבוּעָה לְעֵדוּת.

If one said to witnesses: I administer an oath to you that when you will know testimony relevant to me you will come and testify on my behalf, these witnesses are exempt from liability for taking a false oath of testimony even if they do not testify, due to the fact that the oath preceded their knowledge of the relevant testimony.

עָמַד בְּבֵית הַכְּנֶסֶת וְאָמַר: ״מַשְׁבִּיעַ אֲנִי עֲלֵיכֶם, שֶׁאִם אַתֶּם יוֹדְעִין לִי עֵדוּת שֶׁתָּבוֹאוּ וּתְעִידוּנִי״ – הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ פְּטוּרִין, עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא מִתְכַּוֵּין לָהֶם.

If one stood in the synagogue and said for all to hear: I administer an oath to you that if you know testimony relevant to me you will come and testify on my behalf, these witnesses are exempt until he directs his demand to specific individuals.

אָמַר לִשְׁנַיִם: ״מַשְׁבִּיעַ אֲנִי עֲלֵיכֶם אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי, שֶׁאִם אַתֶּם יוֹדְעִין לִי עֵדוּת שֶׁתָּבוֹאוּ וּתְעִידוּנִי״, ״שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאֵין אָנוּ יוֹדְעִין לָךְ עֵדוּת״; וְהֵם יוֹדְעִין לוֹ עֵדוּת עֵד מִפִּי עֵד, אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה אֶחָד מֵהֶן קָרוֹב אוֹ פָּסוּל – הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ פְּטוּרִין.

If one said to two people: I administer an oath to you, so-and-so and so-and-so, that if you know testimony relevant to me you will come and testify on my behalf, and they respond: On our oath we do not know any testimony relevant to you, and they know testimony relevant to him, not based on an incident they witnessed but based on hearsay testimony, which is not valid testimony, or if one of the witnesses is found to be a relative or disqualified, these witnesses are exempt from liability for taking a false oath of testimony because they are unfit witnesses.

שִׁלַּח בְּיַד עַבְדּוֹ, אוֹ שֶׁאָמַר לָהֶן הַנִּתְבָּע: ״מַשְׁבִּיעַ אֲנִי עֲלֵיכֶם, שֶׁאִם אַתֶּם יוֹדְעִין לוֹ עֵדוּת שֶׁתָּבוֹאוּ וּתְעִידוּהוּ״ – הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ פְּטוּרִין, עַד שֶׁיִּשְׁמְעוּ מִפִּי הַתּוֹבֵעַ.

If the plaintiff sent the demand for their testimony by means of his slave, or in a case where the defendant said to the witnesses: I administer an oath to you that if you know any testimony relevant to the plaintiff that you will come and testify on his behalf, and they took a false oath that they have no knowledge of the matter, these witnesses are exempt from liability for taking a false oath of testimony until they will hear the demand to testify directly from the mouth of the plaintiff.

גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״מַשְׁבִּיעַנִי עֲלֵיכֶם אִם לֹא תָבוֹאוּ וּתְעִידוּנִי שֶׁאָמַר אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי לִיתֵּן לִי מָאתַיִם זוּז וְלֹא נָתַן״ – יָכוֹל יְהוּ חַיָּיבִין? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״תֶּחֱטָא״–״תֶּחֱטָא״ לִגְזֵירָה שָׁוָה.

GEMARA: The Gemara cites proof for the halakhot in the mishna from verses in the Torah. The Sages taught: I administer an oath to you concerning your refusal to testify if you do not come and testify on my behalf that so-and-so said that he is going to give me two hundred dinars and he did not give them to me; in such a case one might have thought that they would be liable. Therefore, the verse states the term “shall sin” with regard to an oath of testimony and “shall sin” with regard to an oath on a deposit in order to derive a verbal analogy.

נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״תֶּחֱטָא״, וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן ״תֶּחֱטָא״; מָה לְהַלָּן בִּתְבִיעַת מָמוֹן – וְיֵשׁ לוֹ, אַף כָּאן בִּתְבִיעַת מָמוֹן – וְיֵשׁ לוֹ.

Here, it is stated with regard to an oath of testimony “shall sin” (Leviticus 5:1), and there, it is stated with regard to an oath on a deposit “shall sin” (Leviticus 5:21). Just as there, with regard to an oath on a deposit, the verse is speaking only with regard to a monetary claim and in a case where the plaintiff has a legitimate claim, so too here, with regard to an oath of testimony, the verse is speaking only with regard to a monetary claim and in a case where the plaintiff has a legitimate claim. In the case cited in the baraita and in the first clause of the mishna, the plaintiff does not have a legitimate claim.

״מַשְׁבִּיעַ אֲנִי עֲלֵיכֶם כְּשֶׁתֵּדְעוּ לִי עֵדוּת״ כּוּ׳.

The mishna teaches: I administer an oath to you that when you will know testimony relevant to me you will come and testify on my behalf.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״מַשְׁבִּיעַ אֲנִי עֲלֵיכֶם כְּשֶׁתֵּדְעוּ לִי עֵדוּת שֶׁתָּבוֹאוּ וּתְעִידוּנִי״ – יָכוֹל יְהוּ חַיָּיבִין? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְשָׁמְעָה קוֹל אָלָה וְהוּא עֵד אוֹ רָאָה אוֹ יָדַע״ – מִי שֶׁקָּדְמָה עֵדוּת לִשְׁבוּעָה, וְלֹא שֶׁקָּדְמָה שְׁבוּעָה לְעֵדוּת.

The Sages taught: I administer an oath to you that when you will know testimony relevant to me you will come and testify on my behalf; in such a case one might have thought that they would be liable. Therefore, the verse states: “And he heard the voice of an oath and he is a witness or he saw or he knew” (Leviticus 5:1). One is liable to bring an offering for a false oath only in a case where knowledge of the testimony preceded the oath, and not in a case where the oath preceded knowledge of the testimony.

עָמַד בְּבֵית הַכְּנֶסֶת וְאָמַר ״מַשְׁבִּיעַנִי עֲלֵיכֶם״. אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: אֲפִילּוּ עֵדָיו בֵּינֵיהֶן.

The mishna continues: If one stood in the synagogue and said for all to hear: I administer an oath to you that if you know testimony relevant to me you will come and testify on my behalf, these witnesses are exempt. Shmuel says: That is the halakha even if his witnesses were among the people in the synagogue.

פְּשִׁיטָא! לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּקָאֵי עִילָּוַיְהוּ; מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: כְּמַאן דְּאָמַר לְהוּ דָּמֵי, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

The Gemara asks: Isn’t this obvious? Otherwise, there would be no novel element in this halakha of the mishna. The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to cite this case only in a situation where he is standing right next to those witnesses. Lest you say he is comparable to one who spoke to them directly and those witnesses would be liable, the tanna teaches us that until he specifies to whom he is directing his demand, he does not render those witnesses obligated to take an oath of testimony.

תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: רָאָה סִיעָה שֶׁל בְּנֵי אָדָם עוֹמְדִין, וְעֵדָיו בֵּינֵיהֶן, וְאָמַר לָהֶן: ״מַשְׁבִּיעַנִי עֲלֵיכֶם אִם אַתֶּם יוֹדְעִין לִי עֵדוּת שֶׁתָּבוֹאוּ וּתְעִידוּנִי״ – יָכוֹל יְהוּ חַיָּיבִין? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְהוּא עֵד״ – וַהֲרֵי לֹא יִיחֵד עֵדָיו. יָכוֹל אֲפִילּוּ אָמַר ״כׇּל הָעוֹמְדִין כָּאן״? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְהוּא עֵד״ – וַהֲרֵי יִיחֵד עֵדָיו.

The Gemara notes: This is also taught in a baraita : If one saw a group of people standing, and his witnesses were among them, and he said to the entire group: I administer an oath to you that if you know testimony relevant to me you will come and testify on my behalf, in such a case one might have thought that they would be liable. The verse states: “And he is a witness” (Leviticus 5:1), and in this case he did not specify his witnesses; therefore, they are not liable. One might have thought that the halakha is the same even if he said: I administer an oath to everyone who is standing here that you will come and testify on my behalf. The verse states: “And he is a witness” (Leviticus 5:1), and in this case, although he spoke to a group, he specified his witnesses; therefore, they are liable.

אָמַר לִשְׁנַיִם: ״מַשְׁבִּיעַ אֲנִי עֲלֵיכֶם״. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן, אָמַר לִשְׁנַיִם: ״מַשְׁבִּיעַ אֲנִי עֲלֵיכֶם פְּלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי, אִם אַתֶּם יוֹדְעִין לִי עֵדוּת שֶׁתָּבוֹאוּ וּתְעִידוּנִי״; וְהֵן יוֹדְעִין לוֹ עֵדוּת עֵד מִפִּי עֵד, אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה אֶחָד מֵהֶן קָרוֹב אוֹ פָּסוּל – יָכוֹל יְהוּ חַיָּיבִין? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אִם לוֹא יַגִּיד וְנָשָׂא עֲוֹנוֹ״ – בִּרְאוּיִן לְהַגָּדָה הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר.

The mishna teaches that if one said to two individuals: I administer an oath to you, and they know testimony relevant to him based on hearsay, or if one of the witnesses is found to be a relative or disqualified, they are exempt. The Gemara cites that which the Sages taught: If one said to two individuals: I administer an oath to you, so-and-so and so-and-so, that if you know testimony relevant to me you will come and testify on my behalf, and they know testimony relevant to him based on hearsay testimony, or if one of the witnesses is a relative or disqualified, in such a case one might have thought that they would be liable. The verse states: “If he does not state it, then he shall bear his iniquity” (Leviticus 5:1), teaching that it is with regard to those eligible for the statement of testimony that the verse is speaking, not those who are ineligible.

שִׁלַּח בְּיַד עַבְדּוֹ וְכוּ׳. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: שִׁלַּח בְּיַד עַבְדּוֹ, אוֹ שֶׁאָמַר לָהֶן הַנִּתְבָּע: ״מַשְׁבִּיעַנִי עֲלֵיכֶם שֶׁאִם אַתֶּם יוֹדְעִין לוֹ עֵדוּת שֶׁתָּבוֹאוּ וּתְעִידוּהוּ״ – יָכוֹל יְהוּ חַיָּיבִין? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אִם לֹא יַגִּיד וְנָשָׂא עֲוֹנוֹ״.

The mishna teaches: If the plaintiff sent the demand for their testimony by means of his slave, etc. The Sages taught: If the plaintiff sent the demand for their testimony by means of his slave, or in a case where the defendant said to the witnesses: I administer an oath to you that if you know any testimony relevant to the plaintiff that you will come and testify on his behalf, might one have thought that they would be liable? The verse states: “If he does not state it, then he shall bear his iniquity” (Leviticus 5:1); therefore, they are not liable.

מַאי תַּלְמוּדָא? אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: ״אִם לוֹא יַגִּיד״ כְּתִיב; אִם לוֹ לֹא יַגִּיד – וְנָשָׂא עֲוֹנוֹ, וְאִם לְאַחֵר לֹא יַגִּיד – פָּטוּר.

The Gemara asks: What is the biblical derivation that leads to that conclusion? Rabbi Elazar said: The derivation is based on the fact that it is written: Im lo yaggid . In the verse the word lo is spelled lamed , vav , alef and interpreted as both “not,” spelled lamed alef , and “to him,” spelled lamed vav . It is derived: If the witness who knows the testimony does not state it to the plaintiff, he shall bear his iniquity, and he is liable; but if he does not state it to another, he is exempt.

מַתְנִי׳ ״מַשְׁבִּיעַנִי (אֲנִי) עֲלֵיכֶם״; ״מְצַוֶּה אֲנִי עֲלֵיכֶם״; ״אוֹסֶרְכֶם אֲנִי״ – הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ חַיָּיבִין.

MISHNA: The mishna discusses the formula of an oath of testimony. If the plaintiff said to the witnesses: I administer an oath to you concerning your refusal to testify if you do not come and testify on my behalf, or even if he said: I command you, or I bind you, although he did not employ an unequivocal formula of an oath, these witnesses are liable for taking a false oath of testimony.

״בַּשָּׁמַיִם וּבָאָרֶץ״ – הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ פְּטוּרִין. ״בְּאָלֶף דָּלֶת״; ״בְּיוֹד הֵי״; ״בְּשַׁדַּי״; ״בִּצְבָאוֹת״; ״בְּחַנּוּן וְרַחוּם״; ״בְּאֶרֶךְ אַפַּיִם״; ״בְּרַב חֶסֶד״; וּבְכָל הַכִּנּוּיִין – הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ חַיָּיבִין.

If one administered the oath to the witnesses in the name of heaven and in the name of earth, these witnesses are exempt from liability for taking a false oath of testimony, as that is not an oath in the name of God. If one administered the oath to the witnesses in the name of alef dalet , i.e., Adonai ; in the name of yod heh , the Tetragrammaton; in the name of the Almighty [ Shaddai ]; in the name of the Lord of Hosts [ Tzevaot ]; in the name of the Gracious and Compassionate One; in the name of He Who is Slow to Anger; in the name of He Who is Abounding in Loving-kindness; or in the name of any of the appellations of God, even though he did not mention the ineffable name of God, these witnesses are liable for taking a false oath of testimony.

הַמְקַלֵּל בְּכוּלָּן – חַיָּיב; דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים פּוֹטְרִין.

One who curses God employing any of these names or appellations of God is liable to be executed through stoning; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis deem him exempt, as they hold that one is liable for cursing God only if he employs the ineffable name of God.

הַמְקַלֵּל אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ בְּכוּלָּן – חַיָּיב; דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים פּוֹטְרִין.

One who curses his father or his mother employing any of these names or appellations of God is liable to be executed through stoning; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis deem him exempt, as they hold that one is liable for cursing his father and his mother only if he employs the ineffable name of God.

הַמְקַלֵּל עַצְמוֹ וַחֲבֵירוֹ בְּכוּלָּן – עוֹבֵר בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה. ״יַכְּכָה ה׳ אֱלֹהִים״, וְכֵן ״יַכְּכָה אֱלֹהִים״ – זוֹ הִיא אָלָה הַכְּתוּבָה בַּתּוֹרָה.

One who curses himself or another employing any of these names or appellations of God violates a prohibition. If one says: The Lord God shall strike you (see Deuteronomy 28:22), and likewise if one says: God shall strike you if you do not come to testify, that is a curse that is written in the Torah, and in such a case one is certainly liable if he fails to testify.

״אַל יַכְּךָ״, וִ״יבָרֶכְךָ״ וְ״יֵיטִיב לָךְ״ – רַבִּי מֵאִיר מְחַיֵּיב, וַחֲכָמִים פּוֹטְרִין.

If one says to the witnesses: God shall not strike you, or: God shall bless you, or: God shall benefit you if you come and testify, Rabbi Meir deems him liable, as one may infer from that statement that if he fails to testify God will strike him, or will not bless or benefit him. And the Rabbis deem him exempt because the curse is not explicitly stated.

גְּמָ׳ ״מַשְׁבִּיעַנִי עֲלֵיכֶם״ – מַאי קָאָמַר? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה, הָכִי קָאָמַר: ״מַשְׁבִּיעַ אֲנִי עֲלֵיכֶם בִּשְׁבוּעָה הָאֲמוּרָה בַּתּוֹרָה״; ״מְצַוֶּה אֲנִי עֲלֵיכֶם בְּצַוָּואָה הָאֲמוּרָה בַּתּוֹרָה״; ״אוֹסֶרְכֶם אֲנִי בְּאִיסּוּר הָאָמוּר בַּתּוֹרָה״.

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that if the plaintiff said to the witnesses: I administer an oath to you, I command you, or I bind you, these witnesses are liable for taking a false oath of testimony. The Gemara asks: What is the plaintiff saying? He merely said that he is administering an oath, but he did not say in the name of what he is administering the oath. Rav Yehuda said: This is what the plaintiff is saying: I administer an oath to you with the oath mentioned in the Torah, I command you with the command mentioned in the Torah, I bind you with the bond mentioned in the Torah, and in the Torah all of these include mention of the name of God.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי, אֶלָּא הָא דְתָנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא: ״כּוֹבֶלְכֶם אֲנִי״ – הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ חַיָּיבִין; כּוֹבֵל בְּאוֹרָיְיתָא מִי כְּתִיב?!

Abaye said to Rav Yehuda: But according to that interpretation, concerning that which Rabbi Ḥiyya teaches, that if the plaintiff said to the witnesses: I chain you, these witnesses are liable for taking a false oath of testimony, is chaining written in the Torah? Apparently, the reference in the mishna and the baraita is not to similar language in the Torah.

אֶלָּא אָמַר אַבָּיֵי, הָכִי קָאָמַר: ״מַשְׁבִּיעַ אֲנִי עֲלֵיכֶם בִּשְׁבוּעָה״; ״מְצַוֶּה אֲנִי עֲלֵיכֶם בִּשְׁבוּעָה״; ״אוֹסֶרְכֶם אֲנִי בִּשְׁבוּעָה״; ״כּוֹבֶלְכֶם אֲנִי בִּשְׁבוּעָה״.

Rather, Abaye said that this is what the plaintiff is saying: I administer an oath to you with an oath, I command you with an oath, I bind you with an oath, I chain you with an oath. The witnesses are liable in all these cases provided that the plaintiff mentions an oath.

״בְּאָלֶף דָּלֶת״; ״בְּיוֹד הֵי״; ״בְּשַׁדַּי״; ״בִּצְבָאוֹת״; ״בְּחַנּוּן וְרַחוּם״; ״בְּאֶרֶךְ אַפַּיִם״; ״בְּרַב חֶסֶד״.

§ The mishna teaches: If one administered the oath to the witnesses in the name of alef dalet , in the name of yod heh , in the name of the Almighty [ Shaddai ], in the name of the Lord of Hosts [ Tzevaot ], in the name of the Gracious and Compassionate One, in the name of He Who is Slow to Anger, or in the name of He Who is Abounding in Loving-kindness, these witnesses are liable for taking a false oath of testimony.

לְמֵימְרָא דְּחַנּוּן וְרַחוּם שֵׁמוֹת נִינְהוּ?! וּרְמִינְהִי: יֵשׁ שֵׁמוֹת שֶׁנִּמְחָקִין, וְיֵשׁ שֵׁמוֹת שֶׁאֵין נִמְחָקִין – אֵלּוּ הֵן שֵׁמוֹת שֶׁאֵין נִמְחָקִין: כְּגוֹן ״אֵל״, ״אֱלֹהֶיךָ״, ״אֱלֹהִים״, ״אֱלֹהֵיכֶם״, ״אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה״, ״אָלֶף דָּלֶת״ וְ״יוֹד הֵי״, ״שַׁדַּי״, ״צְבָאוֹת״ – הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ אֵין נִמְחָקִין.

Is that to say that gracious and compassionate are sacred names? The Gemara raises a contradiction from a baraita : There are names of God that may be erased and there are names of God that may not be erased due to their inherent sanctity. These are names that may not be erased: For example, several variations of the name God [ Elohim ]: El , Elohekha with a second person singular suffix, Elohim , Eloheikhem with a second person plural suffix; I Shall Be As I Shall Be, alef dalet , yod heh , Almighty [ Shaddai ], Lord of Hosts [ Tzevaot ], these names may not be erased.

אֲבָל ״הַגָּדוֹל״, ״הַגִּבּוֹר״, ״הַנּוֹרָא״, ״הָאַדִּיר״ וְ״הֶחָזָק״ וְ״הָאַמִּיץ״, ״הָעִזּוּז״, ״חַנּוּן וְרַחוּם״, ״אֶרֶךְ אַפַּיִם״ וְ״רַב חֶסֶד״ – הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ נִמְחָקִין.

But adjectives that describe the Holy One, Blessed be He, e.g., the Great, the Mighty, the Awesome, the Prodigious, the Powerful, the Courageous, the Strong, gracious, compassionate, slow to anger, or abounding in loving-kindness; these may be erased. Apparently, gracious and compassionate are adjectives and not actual names of God; how, then, does an oath or a curse in the name of gracious and compassionate take effect?

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: מַתְנִיתִין ״בְּמִי שֶׁהוּא חַנּוּן״

Abaye said: In the mishna, it is with regard to one who administers an oath or curses in the name of He Who is Gracious,