TO WHAT DOES SHEVU'AS HA'PIKADON APPLY? (Yerushalmi Halachah 1 Daf 23a)

מתני' שבועת הפקדון נוהגת באנשים ובנשים וברחוקים ובקרובים בכשרים ובפסולים


(Mishnah): Shevu'as ha'Pikadon applies to men and women, to strangers and relatives, to Kosher and invalid witnesses;

בפני ב"ד ושלא בפני ב"ד מפי עצמו ומפי אחרים אינו חייב עד שיכפור בו בב"ד דברי ר"מ


It applies in front of Beis Din and not in front of Beis Din, when he swears himself. If the oath is imposed on him, he is liable only if he denies in Beis Din. R. Meir says so;

וחכ"א בין מפי עצמו בין מפי אחרים כיון שכפר בו חייב


Chachamim say, whether he swears himself or the oath is imposed on him, once he denies he is liable (even outside of Beis Din).

וחייב על זדון שבועה ועל שגגתה עם זדון הפיקדון אינו חייב על שגגתו


He is liable whether he was Mezid or Shogeg about the Shevu'ah, when he was Mezid about the deposit. He is not liable for Shogeg about [the deposit].

ומה הוא חייב על זדונו אשם בכסף שקלים:


What is he liable for Mezid? He brings an Asham that costs at least two Shekalim of silver.

גמ' תני מפי עצמו בשבועת העדות. מהו להיות באלה מפי עצמו


(Gemara) Question: We learned that one is liable for Shevu'as ha'Edus when he swore himself [even though the Torah wrote only through others]. Is he liable for an Alah by himself?

בשבועת הפיקדון מהו להיות באלה


Question: [If you will say that he is liable,] does Shevu'as ha'Pikadon apply to an Alah?

אמר רבי יוסי מכיון דכתיב [ויקרא ה א] נפש [שם כא] נפש כמה שכולהון כאן וכולהון כאן.


Answer #1 (R. Yosi): Since it says Nefesh regarding both of these, we learn everything from one to the other.

א"ר מנא אלה בב"ד מחלוקת ר"מ וחכמים.


Answer #2 (R. Mana): An Alah in Beis Din [for Shevu'as ha'Pikadon], R. Meir and Chachamim argue about this. (R. Meir holds Dun Minah u'Minah; he learns everything from the source, so Alah applies even to Shevu'as ha'Pikadon. Chachamim hold Dun Minah v'Uki b'Asra; they learn only one matter from the source (a Mushba is liable), but they would not learn Alah.)

[שם כא] וכחש בעמיתו לכשיצא וידויו בשבועה פרט למכחש באחד השותפין פרט למכחש בעדים ובשטר


(Beraisa): "V'Chichesh ba'Amiso" - when he fulfilled [the obligation that would have resulted from] his admission through the Shevu'ah. This excludes one who denies to one of the partners (had he admitted, he would not have been liable in the absence of the other partner) and one who denies [money about which there are] witnesses or a document (in any case, he must pay).

אמר רבי יוסי הדא אמרה שנים שלוו מאחד אף על גב דלא כתבין אחראין וערבאין זה לזה אחראין וערבאין זה לזה


(R. Yosi): This teaches that if two borrowed from one, even though they did not write that they are responsible and Arevim (guarantors) for each other, they are responsible and Arevim for each other.

ולא עבדין כן.


Remark: People do not do so. (Rather, they explicitly write so in the document.)

שנים שהפקידו כאחד וביקש האחד ליטול שלו אין שומעין לו.


If two deposited together, and one wants to take his share, we do not heed him.

ויעשה בכופר בחלקו ויהא חייב.


Source: [If you would not say so, one who denied to a partner] should be like one who denied the partner's share, and he would be liable!

אחד שהפקיד לשנים כפר בו זה חייב כפר בו זה חייב.


If one deposited with two people, if this onebdenied to him he is liable, and if the other denied to him he is liable.

[דף כג עמוד ב] הפקיד להם שוה פרוטה לא נמצא מביא קרבן על חצי פרוטה.


Objection: If he deposited Shaveh Perutah with them, it turns out each brings a Korban for a half-Perutah! (Rather, neither brings a Korban.)

ומה כא אילו נשבע ונשבע ונשבע שמא אינו מביא קרבן על חצי פרוטה.


Answer: If one swore [to deny a Perutah], and swore and swore [again about the same Perutah], does he not bring a Korban [for each, i.e.] less than a Perutah [for each Korban?! This is because each time, had he admitted he would have been obligated a reputation. The same applies here!]

תמן כל שבועה חלה על שוה פרוטה הכא אין שבועה חלה על שוה פרוטה.


Rebuttal: There, every Shevu'ah takes effect on a Shaveh Perutah. Here, the Shevu'ah does not take effect on a Shaveh Perutah (each Shomer is liable only half. We explained this like R. MEIR SIMCHAH, Bavli 37a).

רבי לא (ורבי) [צ"ל רבי - קרבן העדה] יוחנן וריש לקיש תריהון אמרין לית כאן עדים כמי שיצא וידויו בשבועה


(R. La citing R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish): [The Beraisa above exempted one who denies money about which there are witnesses or a document. "Witnesses" should be deleted from the text, for since] there are not witnesses here now, he is like one who exempted himself from his admission (i.e. what it would have obligated him) through a Shevu'ah.



Question: What is the reason? (His Shevu'ah does not help, for later the witnesses will testify and obligate him to pay!)

משום שמצוין למות


Answer #1: It is because [witnesses] are prone to die.

ושטר אינו מצוי לאבד הוי לית טעמא


Objection: Is a document not prone to get lost?!

אלא משום שמצוין לשכח עדותן.


Answer #2: Rather, it is because [witnesses] are prone to forget their testimony.

תמן תנינן איכן שורי אמר לו אבד משביעך אני ואמר אמן ועדים מעידין אותו שאכלו משלם את הקרן הודה מעצמו משלם קרן וחומש ואשם.


Support #1 (Mishnah): "Where is my ox?" "It was lost." "I put a Shevu'ah on you", and he answered Amen, and witnesses testify that he ate it, he pays principal. If he admitted by himself, he pays principal and Chomesh and brings an Asham. (Even though there were witnesses, he is liable for the Shevu'ah.)

מתניתא בשאין יודע בעדים אתא מימר לך ואפי' יודע בעידיו.


Rebuttal: [Perhaps] the Mishnah discusses when [the claimant] does not know about the witnesses. [R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish] come to teach that even if he knows about the witnesses [he is liable for the Shevu'ah, for they are prone to forget their testimony].

א"ר יוסי ומתניתא אמרה כן היו שתי כיתי עדים כפרה ראשונה ואח"כ כפרה שנייה שתיהן חייבות.


Support #2 (R. Yosi): Another Mishnah teaches so! If there were two sets of witnesses, and one denied and afterwards the other denied, both of them are liable;

ניחא (ראשונה מתחייבת שנייה) [צ"ל שנייה מתחייבת ראשונה - פני משה] למה לאו משום שמצוין לשכח עדותן.


Granted, the second is liable (for the first already denied). However, why is the first [liable? There are other witnesses to testify!] Rather, it is because they are prone to forget their testimony.

[ויקרא ה כב] וכחש בה ולא בו.


(Beraisa): "V'Chichesh Bah" (he denies the debt), but not Bo (if he admits that he owes, just he lies about whom he owes, e.g. he borrowed from partners and says that he borrowed from only one. We explained this like NO'AM YERUSHALMI.)


SHEVU'AS HA'EDUS ABOUT AN AVEIDAH (Yerushalmi Halachah 1 Daf 23b)

בן עזאי אומר שלשה אבידות הן ביודע בה (ובמוצאיה בה ולא במוצאיה) [צ"ל ולא במוצאיה במוצאיה ולא בה - רידב"ז] לא בה ולא במוצאיה


Ben Azai says, there are three [kinds of SHEVUOS denying testimony about] Aveidos. He knows it (the Aveidah) but not the one who found it, [he knows] the finder but not it, or he does not know it or the finder.

ר' חוניה בשם רבי ירמיה כולהון לפטור.


(R. Chuniyah citing R. Yirmeyah): All of them are exempt.

רבי יעקב בר אחא בשם רבי יוסי לית כן.


(R. Yakov bar Acha citing R. Yosi): It cannot be so!

(רבי יוסי) [צ"ל ר"י - רידב"ז] בעי ויהא כן הפטור.


Question (R"Y): They can be exempt! (Why does R. Yakov say that this cannot be?)

[דף כד עמוד א] א"ר מנא לית כן משלש אבידות ביודע בה (ובמוצאיה בה ולא במוצאיה) [צ"ל ולא במוצאיה במוצאיה ולא בה - רידב"ז] לא בה ולא במוצאיה.


Answer (R. Mana): If so (all are exempt), there are not three Aveidos, i.e. when he knows it but not the finder, the finder but not it, and not it and not the finder! (One cannot count the last case. He does not know anything!)

[צ"ל אלא - רידב"ז] בה ובמוצאיה נן קיימין אלא שמכחש


Rather, we have a tradition that the last case is, he knows it and the finder. In this case, denial applies.

בה ובמוצאיה במוצאיה ולא בה בה ולא במוצאיה


[The order in the correct text of the Beraisa is that he knows] it and the finder, the finder but not it, it and not the finder.

כיני מתניתא בה ובמוצאיה:


Affirmation: The correct text of the Beraisa says "it and the finder" (R. Mana is correct. We explained this like RIDVAZ. NO'AM YERUSHALMI explains that R. Yirmeyah exempts even when he knew both, for perhaps the testimony would not have helped. The finder could say that it was lost through Ones! R. Yosi obligates, for we find liability for Shevu'as ha'Edus even amidst Safek, e.g. there are two sets of witnesses, and the first denied. They are liable because the latter could forget their testimony.)