## Shevuot Daf 30a

###### Shevuot 30a:1
[Shevuot 30a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/30a:1)

מַתְנִי׳ **שְׁבוּעַת הָעֵדוּת** נוֹהֶגֶת בַּאֲנָשִׁים וְלֹא בְּנָשִׁים, בִּרְחוֹקִין וְלֹא בִּקְרוֹבִין, בִּכְשֵׁרִין וְלֹא בִּפְסוּלִין; וְאֵינָהּ נוֹהֶגֶת אֶלָּא בִּרְאוּיִן לְהָעִיד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **The oath of testimony is practiced with regard to men but not with regard to women, with regard to non-relatives** of the litigants **but not with regard to relatives, with regard to** those **fit** to testify **but not with regard to** those **unfit** to testify due to a transgression that they performed. **And** the oath of testimony **is practiced only with regard to** those **fit to testify.**


###### Shevuot 30a:2
[Shevuot 30a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/30a:2)

בִּפְנֵי בֵּית דִּין וְשֶׁלֹּא בִּפְנֵי בֵּית דִּין – מִפִּי עַצְמוֹ, וּמִפִּי אֲחֵרִים אֵין חַיָּיבִין עַד שֶׁיִּכְפְּרוּ בָּהֶן בְּבֵית דִּין. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: בֵּין מִפִּי עַצְמוֹ וּבֵין מִפִּי אֲחֵרִים – אֵינָן חַיָּיבִין עַד שֶׁיִּכְפְּרוּ בָּהֶן בְּבֵית דִּין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The oath of testimony is practiced both **in the presence of a court and not in the presence of a court,** when the potential witness takes the oath **on his own. But** if the oath is administered **by others** and those denying that they witnessed the incident in question neither take an oath nor answer amen to the administered oath, **they are not liable until they deny** any knowledge of the incident in question **in court.** This is **the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: Whether** one of the witnesses takes the oath **on his own or whether** the oath is administered **by others,** the witnesses **are not liable until they deny** any knowledge of the incident in question before the litigants **in court.**


###### Shevuot 30a:3
[Shevuot 30a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/30a:3)

וְחַיָּיבִין עַל זְדוֹן הַשְּׁבוּעָה, וְעַל שִׁגְגָתָהּ עִם זְדוֹן הָעֵדוּת, וְאֵינָן חַיָּיבִין עַל שִׁגְגָתָהּ. וּמָה הֵן חַיָּיבִין עַל זְדוֹן הַשְּׁבוּעָה? קׇרְבַּן עוֹלֶה וְיוֹרֵד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And one is liable for** the act of taking a false **oath with intent and for an unwitting** act of taking a false oath, i.e., he is unaware of the liability for taking a false oath, provided that he takes the oath **with intent** in terms of **the testimony,** i.e., he takes an oath that he has no knowledge of the matter even though he knows that he witnessed the incident. **But** witnesses **are not liable for** taking the oath if they were **unwitting** in terms of the testimony, i.e., they believe that they have no knowledge of the matter. **And what are they liable for** by taking a false **oath with intent?** They are liable to bring **a sliding-scale offering.**


###### Shevuot 30a:4
[Shevuot 30a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/30a:4)

**גְּמָ׳** מְנָהָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וְעָמְדוּ שְׁנֵי הָאֲנָשִׁים״ – בְּעֵדִים הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The mishna teaches that the oath of testimony is not practiced with regard to women because they are unfit to testify. The Gemara asks: **From where is this matter,** that women do not testify, derived? The Gemara answers: It is **as the Sages taught** in a *baraita*: When the verse states: “If an unrighteous witness rises up against any man…**then the two men shall stand”** (Deuteronomy 19:16–17), it is **with regard to witnesses** that **the verse is speaking.** Apparently, men, not women, may testify.


###### Shevuot 30a:5
[Shevuot 30a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/30a:5)

אַתָּה אוֹמֵר בְּעֵדִים, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא בְּבַעֲלֵי דִינִין? כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר ״אֲשֶׁר לָהֶם הָרִיב״ – הֲרֵי בַּעֲלֵי דִינִין אָמוּר; הָא מָה אֲנִי מְקַיֵּים ״וְעָמְדוּ שְׁנֵי הָאֲנָשִׁים״? בְּעֵדִים הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר. וְאִם נַפְשְׁךָ לוֹמַר: נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״שְׁנֵי״ וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן ״שְׁנֵי״; מָה לְהַלָּן בְּעֵדִים, אַף כָּאן בְּעֵדִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: **Do you say** that it is **with regard to witnesses, or** perhaps it is **only with regard to litigants** that the verse is speaking? **When it states: “Between whom the controversy is”** (Deuteronomy 19:17), **the litigants are** already **stated** in the verse. **How do I realize** the meaning of the phrase **“then the two men shall stand”?** Apparently, it is **with regard to witnesses** that **the verse is speaking. And if it is your wish to say** that this is not a proof, another proof may be cited. **It is stated here:** “The **two** men,” **and it is stated there:** “On the basis of **two** witnesses” (Deuteronomy 19:15); **just as there,** it is **with regard to witnesses** that the verse speaks, **so too here,** it is **with regard to witnesses** that the verse speaks.


###### Shevuot 30a:6
[Shevuot 30a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/30a:6)

מַאי ״אִם נַפְשְׁךָ לוֹמַר״? וְכִי תֵּימָא: מִדְּלָא כְּתִב ״וַאֲשֶׁר לָהֶם הָרִיב״– כּוּלֵּיהּ קְרָא בְּבַעֲלֵי דִינִין מִשְׁתַּעֵי; נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״שְׁנֵי״ וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן ״שְׁנֵי״, מָה לְהַלָּן בְּעֵדִים אַף כָּאן בְּעֵדִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What** is the meaning of the statement of the *baraita*: And **if it is your wish to say?** Why is the initial proof inadequate? The Gemara answers: **And if you would say** that **from** the fact **that** the verse **did not write:** Then the two men **and those between whom the controversy is** shall stand, which would indicate that the verse changes its focus from the witnesses to the litigants, perhaps throughout **the entire verse** it is **with regard to litigants** that **it is speaking.** Therefore, the *tanna* cites an additional proof. **It is stated here:** “The **two** men,” **and it is stated there:** “On the basis of **two** witnesses”; **just as there,** it is **with regard to witnesses** that the verse speaks, **so too here,** it is **with regard to witnesses** that the verse speaks.


###### Shevuot 30a:7
[Shevuot 30a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/30a:7)

תַּנְיָא אִידַּךְ: ״וְעָמְדוּ שְׁנֵי הָאֲנָשִׁים״ – בְּעֵדִים הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר בְּעֵדִים, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא בְּבַעֲלֵי דִינִין? אָמְרַתְּ: וְכִי שְׁנַיִם בָּאִים לְדִין, שְׁלֹשָׁה אֵין בָּאִין לָדִין?! וְאִם נַפְשְׁךָ לוֹמַר: נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״שְׁנֵי״ וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן ״שְׁנֵי״, מָה לְהַלָּן בְּעֵדִים, אַף כָּאן בְּעֵדִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**It is taught** in **another** *baraita*: When the verse states: **“Then the two men shall stand,”** it is **with regard to witnesses** that **the verse is speaking.** The *baraita* continues: **Do you say** that it is **with regard to witnesses, or** perhaps it is **only with regard to litigants** that the verse is speaking? The *tanna* asks: Did **you say** that? If the reference is to litigants, why does the verse mention two? **Do two** people **come** to court **for judgment** but **three** people **do not come** to court **for judgment? And if it is your wish to say** that this is not a proof, another proof may be cited. **It is stated here:** “The **two** men,” **and it is stated there:** “On the basis of **two** witnesses”; **just as there,** it is **with regard to witnesses** that the verse speaks, **so too here,** it is **with regard to witnesses** that the verse speaks.


###### Shevuot 30a:8
[Shevuot 30a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/30a:8)

מַאי ״אִם נַפְשְׁךָ לוֹמַר״? וְכִי תֵּימָא: בְּתוֹבֵעַ וְנִתְבָּע קָא מִשְׁתַּעֵי קְרָא; נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״שְׁנֵי״ וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן ״שְׁנֵי״, מָה לְהַלָּן בְּעֵדִים אַף כָּאן בְּעֵדִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What** is the meaning of: And **if it is your wish to say?** Why is the initial proof inadequate? The Gemara answers: **And if you would say** that even though there are cases where there are more than two litigants, it is **with regard to a plaintiff and a defendant** that **the verse is speaking.** Therefore, the *tanna* cites an additional proof. **It is stated here:** “The **two** men,” **and it is stated there:** “On the basis of **two** witnesses”; **just as there,** it is **with regard to witnesses** that the verse speaks, **so too here,** it is **with regard to witnesses** that the verse speaks.


###### Shevuot 30a:9
[Shevuot 30a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/30a:9)

תַּנְיָא אִידַּךְ: ״וְעָמְדוּ שְׁנֵי הָאֲנָשִׁים״ – בְּעֵדִים הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר בְּעֵדִים, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא בְּבַעֲלֵי דִינִין? אָמְרַתְּ: וְכִי אֲנָשִׁים בָּאִין לַדִּין, נָשִׁים אֵין בָּאוֹת לַדִּין?! וְאִם נַפְשְׁךָ לוֹמַר: נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״שְׁנֵי״ וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן ״שְׁנֵי״, מָה לְהַלָּן בְּעֵדִים אַף כָּאן בְּעֵדִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**It is taught** in **another** *baraita*: When the verse states: **“Then the two men shall stand,”** it is **with regard to witnesses** that **the verse is speaking.** The *baraita* continues: **Do you say** that it is **with regard to witnesses, or** perhaps it is **only with regard to litigants** that the verse is speaking? The *tanna* asks: Did **you say** that? If the reference is to litigants, why does the verse mention men? Do **men come** to court **for judgment** but **women do not come** to court **for judgment? And if it is your wish to say** that this is not a proof, another proof may be cited. **It is stated here:** “The **two** men,” **and it is stated there:** “On the basis of **two** witnesses”; **just as there,** it is **with regard to witnesses** that the verse speaks, **so too here,** it is **with regard to witnesses** that the verse speaks.


###### Shevuot 30a:10
[Shevuot 30a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/30a:10)

מַאי ״אִם נַפְשְׁךָ לוֹמַר״? וְכִי תֵּימָא: אִשָּׁה לָאו אוֹרְחַהּ, מִשּׁוּם ״כׇּל כְּבוּדָּה בַת מֶלֶךְ פְּנִימָה״; נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״שְׁנֵי״ וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן ״שְׁנֵי״, מָה לְהַלָּן בְּעֵדִים אַף כָּאן בְּעֵדִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What** is the meaning of: And **if it is your wish to say?** Why is the initial proof inadequate? The Gemara answers that it means: **And if you would say** that with regard to **a woman, it is not** typical **conduct** for **her** to appear in court **due to** the verse that is stated with regard to women: **“All the glory of the king’s daughter is within”** (Psalms 45:14), and that is why the verse addressed a situation that is prevalent, i.e., a case where the litigants are men, and there is no proof that women are unfit for testimony. Therefore, the *tanna* cites an additional proof. **It is stated here:** “The **two** men,” **and it is stated there:** “On the basis of **two** witnesses”; **just as there,** it is **with regard to witnesses** that the verse speaks, **so too here,** it is **with regard to witnesses** that the verse speaks.


###### Shevuot 30a:11
[Shevuot 30a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/30a:11)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וְעָמְדוּ שְׁנֵי הָאֲנָשִׁים״ – מִצְוָה לְבַעֲלֵי דִינִין שֶׁיַּעַמְדוּ. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: שָׁמַעְתִּי שֶׁאִם רָצוּ לְהוֹשִׁיב אֶת שְׁנֵיהֶם – מוֹשִׁיבִין; אֵיזֶהוּ אָסוּר? שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא אֶחָד עוֹמֵד וְאֶחָד יוֹשֵׁב, אֶחָד מְדַבֵּר כׇּל צָרְכּוֹ וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר לוֹ ״קַצֵּר דְּבָרֶיךָ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara cites another interpretation of the verse. **The Sages taught: “Then the two men shall stand”;** this indicates that there is **a mitzva for the litigants to stand** during the court proceedings. **Rabbi Yehuda said: I heard that if** the judges **wished to seat both** of the litigants, **they may seat** them. **What,** then, **is prohibited** for the judges? They must ensure **that there will not be** a situation where **one** litigant **is standing and one** litigant **is sitting,** or a situation where **one** litigant **says everything** that **he needs** to say to present his case **and one** litigant, the judge **says to him: Curtail your statement.**


###### Shevuot 30a:12
[Shevuot 30a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/30a:12)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״בְּצֶדֶק תִּשְׁפֹּט עֲמִיתֶךָ״ – שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא אֶחָד יוֹשֵׁב וְאֶחָד עוֹמֵד, אֶחָד מְדַבֵּר כׇּל צָרְכּוֹ וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר לוֹ: ״קַצֵּר דְּבָרֶיךָ״. דָּבָר אַחֵר: ״בְּצֶדֶק תִּשְׁפֹּט עֲמִיתֶךָ״ – הֱוֵי דָּן אֶת חֲבֵירְךָ לְכַף זְכוּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Sages taught:** The verse states: **“But in righteousness shall you judge your colleague”** (Leviticus 19:15), from which it is derived: The court must ensure **that there will not be** a situation where **one** litigant **is sitting and one** litigant **is standing,** or a situation where **one** litigant **says everything** that **he needs** to say to present his case **and one** litigant, the judge **says to him: Curtail your statement. Alternatively,** it is derived from the verse: **“But in righteousness shall you judge your colleague,”** that you **should judge another favorably,** and seek to find justification for his actions, even if when interpreted differently his actions could be judged unfavorably.


###### Shevuot 30a:13
[Shevuot 30a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/30a:13)

תָּנֵי רַב יוֹסֵף: ״בְּצֶדֶק תִּשְׁפֹּט עֲמִיתֶךָ״ – עִם שֶׁאִתְּךָ בְּתוֹרָה וּבְמִצְוֹת, הִשְׁתַּדֵּל לְדוּנוֹ יָפֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yosef teaches** that from the verse: **“But in righteousness shall you judge your colleague [*amitekha*],”** it is derived: **With** regard to one **who is with you [*im she’itekha*] in** observance of **Torah and in** fulfillment of **mitzvot, try to judge him favorably,** in the manner that the Gemara will now explain.


###### Shevuot 30a:14
[Shevuot 30a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/30a:14)

רַב עוּלָּא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב עִילַּאי הֲוָה לֵיהּ דִּינָא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן. שְׁלַח לֵיהּ רַב יוֹסֵף: עוּלָּא חֲבֵרֵנוּ עָמִית בְּתוֹרָה וּבְמִצְוֹת. אָמַר: לְמַאי שְׁלַח לִי? לְחַנּוֹפֵי לֵיהּ?! הֲדַר אָמַר: לְמִישְׁרֵא בְּתִיגְרֵיהּ,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates: **Rav Ulla, son of Rav Ilai, had a trial** pending **before Rav Naḥman. Rav Yosef sent** a message **to** Rav Naḥman: **Ulla our friend** is **a colleague in Torah and mitzvot,** with regard to whom the verse states that you should judge him favorably. Rav Naḥman **said: For what** purpose **did he send** this message **to me?** Does he expect me **to grant him preferential** treatment? Every judgment must be undertaken with righteousness. Rav Naḥman **then said:** Rav Yosef sent me the message **to** ensure I would **open with** Rav Ulla’s **dispute** in the event that other cases come before me for judgment, in deference to the Torah because he is a Torah scholar.