💾 Archived View for scholasticdiversity.us.to › scriptures › jewish › t › Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Oaths… captured on 2024-05-10 at 12:36:04. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
7 [1] When a person issues a financial claim against a colleague which would require the latter to pay were he to admit [liability] and [the colleague] denies [his obligation] and takes an oath or the plaintiff administers an oath to him and he denies [any obligation]. [If he is lying,] the defendant is liable for an oath concerning a *sh'vuat hapikadon*.
[The above applies] even if [the defendant] does not respond *Amen*. For with regard to a *sh'vuat hapikadon*, one is liable whether he took the oath on his own initiative or another person administered the oath to him and he denied [any obligation], even though he did not respond *Amen*. For denying the claim after the plaintiff administered the oath is equivalent to responding *Amen*. [2] [This does not apply] when [the plaintiff] lodges a claim which if acknowledged by the defendant, i.e., if he would admit that it is true, would not require him to make payment, e.g., he lodged a claim concerning a *k'nas*. For a person is not required to pay a *k'nas* based on his own admission. [In such an instance,] if a person denied [an obligation], he is exempt from a *sh'vuat hapikadon*, but liable for a *sh'vuat bitui*. [3] Similarly, if [the plaintiff] lodged a claim concerning landed property, a servant, or a promissory note, and [the defendant] denied [the claim] and took an oath, he is exempt from a *sh'vuat hapikadon*, but liable for a *sh'vuat bitui*, for he took a false oath. [4] Why is one [who took an oath concerning such claims] exempt from [the obligations of a false] *sh'vuat hapikadon*? Behold, were he to have acknowledged [his obligation], he would have been held liable and [required] to pay what he denied. Because [Leviticus 5:21-22] states: "Concerning an entrusted object, a [financial] deposit, a robbery; he oppressed his colleague, or discovered a lost object." All of this concerns movable property which if he would admit his liability he would have to make financial restitution from his own domain.
This excludes landed property for it is not movable property. For landed property is always revealed before its owner and is always in their possession. [Similarly,] it excludes servants, for an equation is established between servants and landed property. And it excludes promissory notes, for their actual substance is not of financial value. [5] [The above laws apply] whether one took an oath after the plaintiff lodged a claim against him or whether he took it on his own initiative even though a claim was not lodged against him.
What his implied? He took the initiative and said: "Why are you following me? Do I have any money belonging to you? I am taking an oath that I am not in possession of any of your money." Since he denied [an obligation] and took an oath, [he is liable,] even though [the plaintiff] did not lodge a claim against him. [6] [One is liable] whether he took an oath to the person to whom he owes the money or to his agent who was given power of attorney. For a person's agent is equivalent to his own self. [7] One is not liable for a *sh'vuat hapikadon* unless he requires him to take an oath in a language that he understands. [8] When a person consciously takes a *sh'vuat hapikadon*, even though he takes a false oath and is warned by witnesses at the time he takes the oath, he is not liable for lashes, but instead must merely bring a guilt offering. For the Torah excluded him from those who are liable for lashes and obligated him to bring a guilt offering whether he transgressed willfully or inadvertently, as we explained. [9] If one denied [an obligation] and took an oath [concerning it] four or five times or the plaintiff administered an oath to him four or fives times and he denied each one of them, he is liable for a guilt offering for each individual oath. [This applies] whether this took place in a court or outside the court.
[The rationale is that] were he to have admitted his obligation after making his denial, he would be liable to make restitution even though he made the denial in a court. Thus with each denial, he is making himself exempt from payment. Hence, he is liable for each individual oath. [10] If five different people were lodging claims against him and telling him: "Give us the entrusted article of ours that you have in your possession," and he responds: "[I am taking] an oath that I do not have anything of yours in my possession," [should his oath be false,] he is liable for only one sacrifice.
[If he answers: "I am taking] an oath that I don't have anything of yours, or of yours,... or of yours, in my possession," he is liable for each [statement]. [11] If his colleague told him: "Give me the entrusted object, [financial] deposit, stolen object, and lost object [of mine], that you have in your possession," and he responds: "[I am taking] an oath that I do not have anything of yours in my possession," [should his oath be false,] he is liable for only one [sacrifice]. Even if the total of all the claims is [merely] a *p'rutah*, they are all included together and he is liable. [12] [If he answers: "I am taking] an oath that I don't have an entrusted object, [financial] deposit, stolen object, and lost object of yours in my possession," he is liable for each [statement]. [13] [If the plaintiff says:] "Give me the wheat, barley, and buckwheat of mine that you have in your possession," and [the defendant responds]: "[I am taking] an oath that I do not have anything of yours in my possession," [should his oath be false,] he is liable for only one [sacrifice]. [If he answers: "I am taking] an oath that I don't have any wheat, barley, and buckwheat of yours in my possession," he is liable for each [statement]. [14] If five different people were lodging claims against him and telling him: "Give us the entrusted article, [financial] deposit, stolen object, and lost object [of mine], that you have in your possession," and he responds to one of them: "[I am taking] an oath that I don't have an entrusted object, stolen object, lost object, and [financial] deposit of yours, or of yours,... or of yours in my possession," he is liable for each claim [made] by each individual. Thus he is liable for 20 guilt offerings. [15] If [the defendant] claims that he lost an entrusted object or denies [receiving it], he took an oath, and afterwards admitted [that it was in his possession], and then claimed that it was lost, took an oath, and then admitted [that it was in his possession], he must pay the principal and an additional fifth for each oath that he took. [This is derived from Leviticus 5:24 which literally translates as] "its fifths," [implying that] the Torah took into account several fifths for [one sum of] principal.
What is implied? The principal was [worth] four [*zuz*]. One denied [receiving an entrusted article], took an oath, and then admitted [that he possessed it]. Afterwards, he claimed that it was lost, took an oath and then made a second admission, and then claimed that it was lost, took an oath and then made an admission another time. He is required to pay seven [*zuz*]. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations. [16] A value less than a *p'rutah* is not considered as financially significant. Hence, if a person lodges a claim against a colleague for less than a *p'rutah* or for articles worth less than a *p'rutah* and [the defendant] denied the obligation and took an oath, he is exempt with regard to a *sh'vuat hapikadon* and liable for a *sh'vuat bitui*.
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