💾 Archived View for scholasticdiversity.us.to › scriptures › jewish › t › Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Oaths… captured on 2024-05-12 at 17:11:53. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
⬅️ Previous capture (2024-05-10)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
10 [1] If [both] or one of [the plaintiff's] witnesses was unacceptable, a relative, or even one of those disqualified from testifying by Rabbinic decree, the king - who is not fit to give testimony - was one of his witnesses, or the witnesses heard the testimony from other witnesses, [although] they both denied [knowing testimony] and took an oath, they are not liable for a *sh'vuat haedut*, for had they testified, they would not have obligated [the defendant] to pay. [2] [If the plaintiff said:] "I am administering an oath to you that you come and testify on my behalf that so-and-so promised to give me 200 *zuz*, but he did not," and [the witnesses] denied [knowledge of the matter] and took an oath, they are not liable for a *sh'vuat haedut*. For even if they would testify concerning the matter, the defendant would not be liable financially because of his statement. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations. [3] If one charged [witnesses] with testifying that he was a priest or a Levite, or that he was not the son of a woman who underwent divorce or *chalitzah*, and [the witnesses] denied [knowledge of the matter] and took an oath, they are not liable for a *sh'vuat haedut*. For this is not a financial claim. [4] [Similarly, although the witnesses] denied [knowledge of the matter] and took an oath, they are not liable for a *sh'vuat haedut* [if the plaintiff] charges them with testifying [with regard to the following claims]:
his son inflicted a wound upon him,
so-and-so kindled his grainheap on the Sabbath,
so-and-so raped or seduced his virgin daughter who had been consecrated.
[The rationale is that] if they were to give this testimony the defendant would be liable for execution by the court and not for making financial recompense as we explained in *Hilchot Na'arah*. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations. [5] If there was [only] one witness, he denied [knowledge of a financial claim], and an oath was administered to him, he is not liable for a *sh'vuat haedut*. [The rationale is that] the testimony of one witness does not obligate financial payment. [6] If one charged two witnesses with testifying that his wife committed adultery and they denied [knowledge of the matter] and took an oath to that effect, they are liable for a *sh'vuat haedut*. For if they had testified, they would have caused her to forfeit [the money due her by virtue of] her *ketubah*. Thus the one who charged them with testifying would be freed from liability. Hence the witnesses have denied a financial claim. [7] If [a husband] charges witnesses - [either witnesses] who observed him administering a [*sotah*] warning or those who observed her entering into privacy with the man concerning whom she was warned - with testifying, and they denied [knowledge of the matter] and took an oath to that effect, they are not liable for a *sh'vuat haedut*. [The rationale is that] even if they had testified, [the testimony] would not result in a financial claim only in the obligation to have her drink [the *sotah*] waters. Although this testimony [can] cause her to forfeit [the money due her by virtue of] her *ketubah* if she does not drink [the *sotah* waters], a matter that could lead to a financial claim is not considered as a financial claim. For it is possible that she will drink the waters and not invalidate her *ketubah*. [8] [A witness] is liable for a *sh'vuat haedut* [in the following situation. A man] issued a [*sotah*] warning to his wife. She entered into privacy [as observed by] two witnesses and then committed adultery, [as observed by] one witness after being warned and entering into privacy. If [the husband] administered an oath to this witness that he come and testify and he denied knowledge [of the matter], he is liable. Although he is only one witness, if he would have delivered this testimony, the woman would have been divorced without receiving [the money due her by virtue of] her *ketubah* as explained in *Hilchot Sotah*. [9] Similarly, in any other instance where the testimony of one witness creates a financial obligation, if that witness denies knowledge [of the matter] and took an oath or an oath was administered to him in court supporting his denial, he is liable for a *sh'vuat haedut*. [10] What is implied? Both the plaintiff and the defendant were reputed [to take false] oaths and hence they are not given the opportunity to take oaths, [the plaintiff] administered an oath to one witness that he should come and testify that so-and-so owes him a *maneh* and he denied [knowledge of the matter], he is liable for a *sh'vuat haedut*. For were he to have testified, the defendant would have been required to pay because of his testimony, as will be explained in *Hilchot To'en*. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations. [11] When a woman administers an oath to one witness that he testify regarding the death of her husband and he denies [knowledge of the matter], he is liable for a *sh'vuat haedut*. Were he to have testified, she would have married and received [the money due her by virtue of] her *ketubah*. [12] When does the above apply? When she could have collected [the money due her by virtue of] her *ketubah* from movable property. If, however, she could only have collected [this sum] by expropriating landed property, [the witness] is not liable for a *sh'vuat haedut*. This also applies if there are two witnesses, for when one administers an oath [to witnesses for claims] involving landed property, they are not liable [for a *sh'vuat haedut*,] as we explained. [13] When a person administers an oath to witnesses in a court and both denied [knowledge of the matter] at once, e.g., the second witness began his denial immediately after the statements of his colleague, they are both liable for a *sh'vuat haedut*. Each one of them must bring a sin offering for his oath. If the first one denied [knowledge of the matter] and the second witness waited longer than the appointed time period and then denied [knowledge of the matter], the first [witness] is liable for a *sh'vuat haedut* and the second is exempt. For even if the second had acknowledged [the obligation], his testimony would not have obligated [the defendant] financially. [14] If one of the witnesses acknowledged [the claim] and the other denied [knowledge of it], the one who denied is liable whether he made his denial before [the other witness' acknowledgement] or afterwards. If they both denied [knowledge of the matter] at the same time and then one took the initiative and acknowledged [the matter] immediately thereafter, he is exempt and the witness that persists in his denial is liable for a *sh'vuat haedut*. [15] When a person administered an oath to two pairs of witnesses who are both fit to deliver testimony and the first group denied [knowledge of the matter] and then the second pair denied knowledge of the matter, the first are not liable for a *sh'vuat haedut*. [The rationale is that] they are relying on the testimony of the second pair and that testimony is sufficient to expropriate money. Hence the defendant would not be liable to make financial restitution because of the testimony of these [witnesses] who denied [knowledge of the matter] alone.
If the second pair of witnesses were related to the plaintiff or to the defendant by marriage and their wives were on their deathbeds, the first pair of witnesses are also liable. For at the time the first pair made their denial, the second pair were not fit to give testimony even though they will soon be fit to give testimony when [the women] on their deathbeds die. If the second pair make their denial after their wives die, they are liable for a *sh'vuat haedut*. [16] When a person charges his witnesses with testifying on his behalf and they deny [knowledge of the matter], he administers an oath and they answer *Amen*, he administers an oath four or five times and they respond to each oath outside the court, and when they come to the court, they acknowledge [the matter] and testify, they are not liable for a *sh'vuat haedut*, as we explained.
If [when] they came to court, they persisted in their denial, they are liable for every one of the oaths [administered] outside the court. [17] When does the above apply? When they answered *Amen*. If, however, they did not answer *Amen*, but [merely] denied [knowledge of the matter] after every oath, they are not liable unless the oath is administered in court, as we explained. [The rationale is that] they did not utter the oath themselves or answer *Amen*. [18] If [the plaintiff] administered an oath to [the witnesses] in court and they denied [knowledge of the matter] and then he administered an oath again four or five times and they deny [knowledge of the matter] each time, they are liable only once for a *sh'vuat haedut*. [This applies whether the oath was administered] in court or outside the court and even if they answered *Amen* or took the oath on their initiative time after time. [The rationale is that] after they denied [knowledge of the matter] in court, were they to retract and admit [knowledge of it], their testimony would no longer be effective. [19] It can thus be derived that all the oaths that they take after denying [knowledge of the matter] in court involve a denial of testimony that would not obligate [the defendant] financially. [In that instance, the witnesses] are not liable for a *sh'vuat haedut*, but they are liable for a *sh'vuat bitui*, as we explained.
Version: Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007
Source: https://www.nli.org.il/he/books/NNL_ALEPH001020101/NLI
License: CC-BY-NC