Il giuramento di testimonianza. Come mai? Se dicesse a due: "Vieni e testimonia per me" (e loro risposero :) "Giuriamo che non conosciamo alcuna testimonianza per te"; o se rispondessero: "Non conosciamo alcuna testimonianza per te" (e lui disse :) "Ti assalisco" e loro dissero: "Amen", sono responsabili. Se li ha assediati cinque volte al di fuori di beth-din e sono arrivati a beth-din e hanno ammesso (che conoscevano la testimonianza), non sono responsabili [anche se lo hanno negato per ogni giuramento al di fuori di beth-din. Poiché la negazione al di fuori del beth-din non è considerata una negazione.] Se lo negavano (nel beth-din), sono responsabili di ciascuno, [essendo scritto (Levitico 5: 5): "E lo sarà, se egli essere colpevole per uno di questi "—per renderlo responsabile per ciascuno.] Se li ha assediati cinque volte prima del beth-din e loro lo hanno negato, sono responsabili solo per uno. R. Shimon ha detto: Perché [sono responsabili solo per uno anche se hanno taciuto e lo hanno negato alla fine? Perché non diciamo che la negazione si applica a tutti i giuramenti, per renderli responsabili di ognuno?] (La risposta :) Poiché [se lo hanno negato per la prima volta], non possono tornare indietro e ammettere esso. [vale a dire, poiché hanno già detto di non conoscere alcuna testimonianza per lui, non possono tornare indietro e testimoniare (altrimenti), quindi, anche se alla fine lo hanno negato, tutti i giuramenti erano superflui, tranne il primo. Perché se il loro silenzio all'inizio è considerato come una negazione, non è più opportuno assalirli; e se non viene considerato come una negazione, sono già usurati e i giuramenti successivi sono "giuramenti su un giuramento". Perforazione, quindi, "'per uno' ', per renderlo responsabile per ciascuno", parla di giuramenti al di fuori di beth-din e di negazione in beth-din. Perché i giuramenti con i quali li assiste per venire e testimoniare nel bel mezzo non sono superflui e si prestano alla divisione. Se all'inizio lo negassero, potrebbero essere nuovamente indossati.]
Bartenura on Mishnah Shevuot
ובאו לבית דין והודו פטורים – and even if they denied [that they had testimony about so-and-so] outside of the Jewish court on each oath for no denial outside the Jewish court is considered denial.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Shevuot
Introduction
The first half of mishnah three explains how an oath of testimony is done. The second half of the mishnah discusses a witness who falsely swears five times that he had no knowledge of testimony.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Shevuot
כפרו בב"ד חייבין על כל אחת ואחת – as the Biblical verse states (Leviticus 5:5): “When he realizes his guilt in any of these matters,[he shall confess that wherein he has sinned],” to be liable for each and every one.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Shevuot
The oath of testimony: How is it done? If he said to two [persons]: “Come and bear testimony for me”; [and they replied:] “We swear we know no testimony for you”; Or they said to him: “We know no testimony for you”, [and he said:] “I adjure you” and they said, “Amen! “, they are liable. An oath of testimony can be done in one of two ways. The first way is for the litigant to ask the witnesses to come and testify on his behalf and for them to swear that they have no knowledge of testimony. Alternatively the witnesses can state that they know no testimony and the litigant can adjure them that they know no testimony. If they answer amen, they have sworn an oath of testimony. If they have sworn falsely they are liable.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Shevuot
מה טעם – that they are not liable other than for one [sacrifice] even if they were silent and denied [their knowing anything] at the end, and we don’t say that a denial exists for all of them to make them liable for each and every one (i.e., testimony).
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Shevuot
If he adjured them five times outside the court, and the they came to the court and admitted [knowledge of testimony], they are exempt. If they denied, they are liable for each [oath]. If he adjured them five times before the court, and they denied [knowledge of testimony], they are liable only once. Said Rabbi Shimon: “What is the reason? Because they cannot afterwards admit [knowledge]. This section discusses a case where a litigant adjured the witnesses five times. The mishnah asks the question, in what case will they be liable for having sworn falsely five times, in what case they will be liable for having sworn falsely once and in what case will they be exempt. If, he adjured them outside of the court, and then when they came to court they admitted that they knew testimony, they are not liable. As we learned in mishnah one, the denial of knowledge must occur in front of the court. If, after having adjured them five times they come to court and continue to deny knowledge, then they are liable for having sworn five false oaths of testimony. The denial at court makes each oath outside of court a potentially effective oath, and therefore if it was false, it causes them to be liable. If he adjured them five times in front of the court and they denied knowledge each time, they will be liable for having sworn only one false oath. Rabbi Shimon explains that since after the first denial in front of the court they will not be able to change their minds, the subsequent oaths were meaningless. Once a person has in court denied knowing testimony he cannot change his mind and testify. Since, except for the first oath, the other oaths were meaningless, he can only be liable for one false oath.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Shevuot
הואיל – but whereas if they denied in the Jewish court the first time, they would not be able to retract and confess, for they already stated that they don’t know any testimony about him, and furthermore, they do not retract and state [testimony]; therefore, even though that they didn’t deny [knowing anything about so-and-so] until the end, all of the oaths were abrogated, except for the first one. For he fact that they were silent initially is denial, they are not worthy to be made to take an oath and if it is not denial, they are sworn in as standing witnesses. And what is an oath upon an oath? By force, when it is written (in Leviticus 5:5): “in any of these matters” – to be liable for each and every one, referring to an oath taken outside the Jewish court and they denied it in the Jewish court as it is written [in Scripture] that he would administer an oath to them when they would come to the Jewish court and they would testify and they would not leave in idleness, and it is appropriate for them to divide if they denied there at first, it would be appropriate to retract and to administer to them an oath.
