Wenn beide es gleichzeitig bestritten haben [dh in derselben "Sprechspanne"], haften beide. (Wenn sie es bestritten) einer nach dem anderen, dh der erste haftet und der zweite nicht. [Denn da der erste es bestritt (dh dass er aussagen konnte), kann der zweite nicht mehr aussagen, da er nur einer ist.] Wenn einer von ihnen bestritt und der andere zugab, haftet der Leugner. Wenn es zwei Zeugengruppen gäbe—Wenn der erste es leugnete und dann der zweite es leugnete, haften beide, weil das Zeugnis durch beide erhalten werden kann. [Die Gemara fragt: Warum sollte der erste Satz haftbar gemacht werden, wenn es einen zweiten Satz gibt? Welchen Verlust haben sie ihm durch ihre Ablehnung zugefügt? Und es antwortet, dass unsere Mischna von einem Fall spricht, in dem die Zeugen im zweiten Satz durch ihre Frauen verwandt waren und nicht kasher waren, um auszusagen, als der zweite Satz leugnete, und ihre Frauen (zum Zeitpunkt des Todes) Gosesoth waren. Ich könnte denken, da das Urteil lautet: "Die meisten Gosesim sterben", ist es, als ob sie bereits tot sind, und der erste Satz sollte nicht haftbar gemacht werden, denn es gibt noch einen zweiten Satz; Wir sind daher informiert (dass dies nicht der Fall ist), dass sie (zum Zeitpunkt der Verweigerung) noch nicht gestorben sind. Es wird also festgestellt, dass zum Zeitpunkt der Ablehnung nur der erste Satz vorhanden war, weshalb sie haften.]
Bartenura on Mishnah Shevuot
כפרו שניהם כאחת – in an interval equivalent to the time of speaking (“Greetings to you, My teacher.”).
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Shevuot
Introduction
Mishnah four discusses how many of the witnesses deny knowledge such that they become liable for swearing a false oath of testimony.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Shevuot
בזה אחר זה – that there was between [the testimony of] this one and [the testimony of] that one more than an interval equivalent to the time of speaking.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Shevuot
In order to understand this mishnah it is important to remember that in Jewish law two witnesses are needed to prove a case. A single witness’s testimony is not acceptable in court.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Shevuot
הראשון חייב – but the second is exempt, for since the first one denied, the second one is furthermore not appropriate to testify because he is an individual (and testimony requires two or more individuals).
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Shevuot
If both [persons] denied [knowledge] together, they are both liable. If both witnesses deny knowledge at the same time then they are both liable for false oaths. Since they both equally have caused the litigant to lose his case, they are both liable.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Shevuot
שתיהן חייבות – in the Gemara (Tractate Shevuot 32b-33a) raises the objection – why is the first [set of witnesses] liable, for the second set [of witnesses] exists? For what have the first [set of witnesses] lost through their denial? And it answers that that the our Mishnah is speaking about q case where the witnesses of the second group were related through their wives (see Rashi’s comment: they married two sisters and are not valid as a singular testimony, and they were not valid to testify when the first set [of witnesses] denied [that they knew anything to testify] and their wives were on their deathbeds, for you might have thought that we hold that most people on their deathbeds will die, it was for them as if they [i.e., their wives) had died and the first set [of witnesses] were exempt but the second set exists. It comes to tell us now however that he is not dead. But it is found that only the first set [of witnesses] alone was there at the time of the denial, and therefore, they are liable.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Shevuot
If one after another, the first is liable, and the second exempt. If one denies knowing testimony and then the second witness also denies, the first witness is liable and the second is not. Since, when the second witness was asked to testify, the only other witness had already sworn that he had no knowledge, the second person’s testimony would not have been accepted in any case. In other words, by denying knowledge he did not cause any loss to the litigant, and he is therefore not liable.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Shevuot
If one denied, and the other admitted, the one who denied is liable. If one person denies knowledge and the other person admits to knowing testimony, the first person is liable since he caused the litigant to lose his case. If he had admitted, there would have been the sufficient two to prove the case.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Shevuot
If there were two sets of witnesses, and the first denied, and then the second denied, they are both liable, because the testimony could be upheld by [either of] the two. If two sets of two witnesses deny knowledge, one after the other, both sets, meaning all four witnesses, are liable. Since the testimony could have been established by either set of witnesses, they have all caused a loss to the litigant by denying knowledge, and they are therefore, all liable.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Shevuot
Questions for Further Thought: • What is the difference between the scenario in section two and the scenario in section four?
