Talmud for Shevuot 6:1

שְׁבוּעַת הַדַּיָּנִין, הַטַּעֲנָה שְׁתֵּי כֶסֶף, וְהַהוֹדָאָה בְּשָׁוֶה פְרוּטָה. וְאִם אֵין הַהוֹדָאָה מִמִּין הַטַּעֲנָה, פָּטוּר. כֵּיצַד, שְׁתֵּי כֶסֶף לִי בְיָדֶךָ, אֵין לְךָ בְיָדִי אֶלָּא פְרוּטָה, פָּטוּר. שְׁתֵּי כֶסֶף וּפְרוּטָה לִי בְיָדֶךָ, אֵין לְךָ בְיָדִי אֶלָּא פְרוּטָה, חַיָּב. מָנֶה לִי בְיָדֶךָ, אֵין לְךָ בְיָדִי, פָּטוּר. מָנֶה לִי בְיָדֶךָ, אֵין לְךָ בְיָדִי אֶלָּא חֲמִשִּׁים דִּינָר, חַיָּב. מָנֶה לְאַבָּא בְיָדֶךָ, אֵין לְךָ בְיָדִי אֶלָּא חֲמִשִּׁים דִּינָר, פָּטוּר, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא כְמֵשִׁיב אֲבֵדָה:

The oath of the judges [i.e., the oath by which the judges beswear him where there is acknowledgement of part of the claim], two silver [The claim must not be less than for two maoth of silver, a third of a dinar. For the dinar is six maoth, the weight of ninety-six medium sized se'oroth (barley-corns), so that the weight equivalent of two maoth is thirty-two se'oroth.], and the admission, the value of a p'rutah. [The admission which makes him liable to an oath must not be less than the value of a p'rutah. So that if what he denied was less than two (maoth of silver) or what he admitted, less than a p'rutah, he is not liable to a Torah mandated oath, but he is besworn a shvuath heseth (a consuetudinal oath) by rabbinical ordinance. One who is liable to a Torah mandated oath must hold an object in his hand (e.g., a Torah scroll or teffillin) when he swears; and one who is liable to a shvuath heseth does not hold an object in his hand, but the beadle of the congregation or the one who beswears him holds an object in his hand while the oath is being taken. There are only three Torah mandated oaths, and no more: (the oath for) one who admits part of the claim, (the oath administered) where one witness testifies against him and he swears in refutation of the witness, and the oath of the watchers (shomrim). All of the other oaths mentioned in the Mishnah are rabbinically prescribed, and are similar to Torah oaths in that an object is held. The only (substantive) difference between a Torah oath and those mentioned in the Mishnah is that if one is liable to a Torah oath and refuses to swear, beth-din go down to his property and exact payment in full, whereas if one is liable to a rabbinically prescribed oath and he refuses to swear, he is placed under the ban until he pays or swears. And if after thirty days of the ban he still refuses to either swear or pay, he is smitten "stripes of rebellion" (makkoth marduth), the ban is rescinded and he is "let go," and they do not go down to his property.] And if the admission is not of the "kind" of the claim, he is exempt (from an oath). How so? (If one claims:) "You owe me two silver (maoth," and he says:) "I owe you only a p'rutah," he is exempt, [the admission not being of the "kind" of the claim, the claim being "silver," and the admission copper. This, only when the claim is for the weight of two maoth of silver or more. But if he claims a coin of silver, the other had admitted a coin (of copper)!] "You owe me two silver and a p'rutah" — "I owe you only a p'rutah," he is liable, [the premise being: If the claim is for wheat and barley, and the admission for any one of them, he is liable.] "You owe me a maneh" — "I owe you nothing," he is exempt. "You owe me a maneh" — "I owe you only fifty dinars," he is liable. "You owe my father a maneh" — "I owe you only fifty dinars," he is exempt, for he is like the returner of a lost object, [who is exempt from an oath, as we learned: If one finds a lost object, he is not subject to an oath, for the public good. And this, only when the son does not claim positively that he owes his father a maneh, but only tentatively. But if he claimed it positively, and the other admitted to only fifty, he is subject to a Torah mandated oath, this not being like returning a lost object.]

Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin

HALAKHAH: “Each of them disqualifies the other’s witnesses,” etc. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, so is the Mishnah: “His witness,” but not his witnesses²⁰Since a single witness is never decisive, one of the parties can claim that a single witness appearing for one of the parties was unacceptable as a witness (Mishnah 6) without presenting formal proof. But if two witnesses are appearing together, only formal proof of ineligibility is admissible since “two or three witnesses are sufficient to confirm anything” (Deut. 19:15).. But Rebbi Joḥanan said, even his witnesses²¹Even the credibility of a pair of witnesses can be attacked, under the conditions spelled out later in the Halakhah., as it was stated²²It seems that a text similar to Tosephta 6:4 is intended. That Tosephta states first that “One always may add judges until judgment is rendered.” If after hearing the case, the arbitration panel is split, one judge voting for each side, but the third cannot decide how to vote, then each of the parties has to select an additional judge. In case of an evenly split court one always adds two new judges until a majority verdict is reached. After a lengthy discussion of the deadlines to be imposed for the presentation of witnesses, the Tosephta concludes: “Witnesses can always change their testimony before being cross-examined; after they were cross-examined they can no longer change their testimony; this is a matter of principle.” R. Johanan holds that as long as witnesses may change their testimony, their credibility can be attacked.: “One always adds judges until judgment is rendered, and the judges may change their opinions. After judgment is rendered they may no longer change their opinions.” Rebbi Joḥanan agrees, that if these were the only ones²³If the other side’s case depends on the testimony of one pair of witnesses, the other party has a monetary interest in seeing them disqualified. Therefore, the party to the dispute is barred from appearing as a witness against any of the witnesses since his testimony would be tainted (Babli 23b)., he cannot disqualify them. Zeˋira said, he and a person from the street can team up to disqualify this testimony²⁴Zeˋira (in the Babli he is called Zeˋiri) explains what it means that “a party to a suit may disqualify the other side’s witness.” He and another witness may appear before the permanent communal court as witnesses to ask for a judgment which will disqualify the witness for the other side. Even if the other side has alternative witnesses, one should disqualify the party as a tainted witness. He is admitted only because the opposing party, by presenting a multitude of witnesses, cast doubt on the reliability of their own witnesses.. Rebbi Ḥanina asked, does not one witness force an oath everywhere²⁵Since Deut. 19:15 spells out that “a single witness is insufficient for any conviction,” instead of saying that “a single witness is unacceptable,” it follows that a single witness is acceptable for anything short of a conviction. In money matters this implies that a single witness to a claim can force a party to swear to dispute the claim (Sifry Deut. 188; Babli Ketubot 87b).? Rebbi Zeˋira said, by disqualification one can only be disqualified by a court²⁶Only a permanent communal court is qualified to bar a person from being a witness, based on Mishnah 7.. A relative does not have to be disqualified by the court²⁷A person can be an acceptable witness for anybody but his close relatives. This case of disability is a matter of showing facts; it does not need the formal proclamation of a court.. Rava bar Binah said in the name of Rav: Three are like final judgment²⁸This has nothing to do with the Mishnah; it refers to the Tosephta quoted earlier, Note 22. As soon as a verdict is reached, one can no longer add judges. A verdict is rendered by three voting judges..

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Full Chapter Next Verse