Se entrambi lo negavano allo stesso tempo [cioè, nello stesso "arco di tempo"], entrambi sono responsabili. (Se lo hanno negato) uno dopo l'altro, [vale a dire, dopo il "periodo di conversazione"], il primo è responsabile e il secondo no. [Dal momento che il primo lo ha negato (cioè che poteva testimoniare), il secondo non può più testimoniare, essendo solo uno.] Se uno di loro negato e l'altro ammesso, il negatore è responsabile. Se ci fossero due serie di testimoni—Se il primo lo negava e poi il secondo lo negava, entrambi sono responsabili, perché la testimonianza può ottenere attraverso entrambi. [La Gemara chiede: Perché il primo set dovrebbe essere responsabile se esiste un secondo set? Che perdita gli hanno causato la loro negazione? E risponde che la nostra Mishnah sta parlando di un caso in cui i testimoni del secondo set erano parenti attraverso le loro mogli, non essendo kasher per testimoniare quando il secondo set è stato negato, e le loro mogli erano gosesoth (in punto di morte). Potrei pensare che dato che la sentenza è: "la maggior parte dei gosesim muore", è come se fossero già morti, e il primo set non dovrebbe essere responsabile, perché c'è ancora un secondo set; siamo pertanto informati (che non è così) per ora (al momento della negazione) non erano ancora morti. Si scopre, quindi, che solo il primo set era presente al momento del diniego, per cui sono responsabili.]
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?
