## Shevuot Daf 33b

###### Shevuot 33b:1
[Shevuot 33b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/33b:1)

שֶׁהוֹצִיא אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי שֵׁם רַע עַל בִּתִּי״ – חַיָּיבִין. הוֹדָה מִפִּי עַצְמוֹ – פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**that so-and-so slandered my daughter.** In such a case, the witnesses are **liable** for taking a false oath of testimony. If the accused **admitted on his own** that he slandered the young woman, he is **exempt** from paying the fine. The only payment in the case of a husband who falsely accuses his bride of adultery is payment of a fine, and yet the *baraita* says that the witnesses are liable for taking a false oath of testimony.


###### Shevuot 33b:2
[Shevuot 33b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/33b:2)

הָא מַנִּי – רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא, דְּאָמַר: יָבוֹאוּ עֵדִים וְיָעִידוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: In accordance with **whose** opinion **is this** *baraita*? **It is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, who says:** Even if the one who is liable to pay the fine admits his liability, **the witnesses shall come and testify** and render the one who performed the action liable to pay the fine.


###### Shevuot 33b:3
[Shevuot 33b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/33b:3)

אֵימָא סֵיפָא: הוֹדָה מֵעַצְמוֹ – פָּטוּר, אֲתָאן לְרַבָּנַן!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Say the latter clause** of the *baraita*: If that man **admitted on his own** that he slandered the young woman, he is **exempt** from paying the fine. Ostensibly, in this **we arrive at** the opinion of **the Rabbis,** who hold that if the one who is liable admits his liability before the witnesses testify, he is exempt from paying the fine, contrary to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon.


###### Shevuot 33b:4
[Shevuot 33b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/33b:4)

כּוּלָּהּ רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא, וְהָכִי קָאָמַר: לָא מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ הוֹדָה מִפִּי עַצְמוֹ דְּפָטוּר, אֶלָּא הֵיכָא דְּלֵיכָּא עֵדִים כְּלָל וְהוֹדָה מֵעַצְמוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: The *baraita* in **its entirety is** the opinion of **Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, and this** is what the *tanna* **is saying** in the latter clause: **You find** a case of one who **admitted** liability **on his own that** he is **exempt** from paying the fine, **only** in a case **where there are no witnesses at all and he admitted** liability **on his own.** In a case where there are witnesses, he is liable to pay the fine on the basis of their testimony even if he admitted liability.


###### Shevuot 33b:5
[Shevuot 33b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/33b:5)

**מַתְנִי׳** ״מַשְׁבִּיעַ אֲנִי עֲלֵיכֶם, אִם לֹא תָבוֹאוּ וְתָעִידוּ שֶׁאֲנִי כֹּהֵן, שֶׁאֲנִי לֵוִי, שֶׁאֵינִי בֶּן גְּרוּשָׁה, שֶׁאֵינִי בֶּן חֲלוּצָה, שֶׁאִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי כֹּהֵן, שֶׁאִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי לֵוִי, שֶׁאֵינוֹ בֶּן גְּרוּשָׁה, שֶׁאֵינוֹ בֶּן חֲלוּצָה,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** In a case where the plaintiff said to two witnesses: **I administer an oath to you** concerning your refusal to testify **if you do not come and testify that I am a priest,** or **that I am a Levite,** or **that I am not the son of** a priest and **a divorced woman,** or **that I am not the son of** a priest and **a *ḥalutza*,** or **that so-and-so is a priest,** or **that so-and-so is a Levite,** or **that he is not the son of** a priest and **a divorced woman,** or **that he is not the son of** a priest and **a *ḥalutza*;** in all these cases the witnesses are exempt from liability for taking a false oath of testimony, because these do not involve monetary claims.


###### Shevuot 33b:6
[Shevuot 33b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/33b:6)

שֶׁאָנַס אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי אֶת בִּתּוֹ, וּפִתָּה אֶת בִּתּוֹ, וְשֶׁחָבַל בִּי בְּנִי, וְשֶׁחָבַל בִּי חֲבֵירִי, שֶׁהִדְלִיק גְּדִישִׁי בְּשַׁבָּת״ – הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ פְּטוּרִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Likewise, if the plaintiff said to them: I administer an oath to you concerning your refusal to testify if you do not come and testify **that so-and-so raped his daughter, or** that **he seduced his daughter, or that my son injured me, or that another** person **wounded me** on Shabbat, or **that he set my stack of grain on fire on Shabbat;** in all these cases **these** witnesses **are exempt,** as each case is punishable with the death penalty, and therefore they are cases that do not involve monetary payment.


###### Shevuot 33b:7
[Shevuot 33b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/33b:7)

**גְּמָ׳** טַעְמָא דְּאִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי כֹּהֵן, דְּאִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי לֵוִי; הָא ״מָנֶה לִפְלוֹנִי בְּיַד פְּלוֹנִי״ – חַיָּיבִין; הָא קָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: עַד שֶׁיִּשְׁמְעוּ מִפִּי הַתּוֹבֵעַ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara infers: **The reason** that the witnesses are exempt is that the plaintiff demanded that they testify **that so-and-so is a priest** or **that so-and-so is a Levite,** which are claims that do not involve monetary payment; **but** were the plaintiff to say: I administer an oath to you concerning your refusal to testify if you do not come and testify that **one hundred dinars** belonging **to so-and-so are in the possession of** another **so-and-so,** they would be **liable. But isn’t it taught** in **the latter clause** of the mishna (35a): The witnesses are exempt **until they hear** a demand to come and testify directly **from the mouth of the plaintiff,** and here the individual administering the oath is not the plaintiff.


###### Shevuot 33b:8
[Shevuot 33b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/33b:8)

אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: בְּבָא בְּהַרְשָׁאָה. וְהָאָמְרִי נְהַרְדָּעֵי: לָא כָּתְבִינַן אוֹרַכְתָּא אַמִּטַּלְטְלִי! הָנֵי מִילֵּי הֵיכָא דְּכַפְרֵיהּ, אֲבָל לָא כַּפְרֵיהּ – כָּתְבִינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Shmuel says:** The reference here is to a case **where** the individual administering the oath **comes with authorization** to demand that the witnesses testify on his behalf. The Gemara asks: **But didn’t** the Sages **of Neharde’a say: We do not write an authorization document concerning movable property?** The Gemara answers: **This statement** that one does not write authorization for movable property applies only in a case **where** the respondent already **denied** the claim against him. **But** in a case where the respondent **did not** yet **deny** the claim against him, **we write** authorization even for movable property.


###### Shevuot 33b:9
[Shevuot 33b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/33b:9)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מִנַּיִן שֶׁאֵין הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר אֶלָּא בִּתְבִיעַת מָמוֹן? רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״אוֹאִין״, וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן ״אוֹאִין״; מָה לְהַלָּן אֵינוֹ מְדַבֵּר אֶלָּא בִּתְבִיעַת מָמוֹן, אַף כָּאן אֵינוֹ מְדַבֵּר אֶלָּא בִּתְבִיעַת מָמוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **The Sages taught: From where** is it derived **that the verse** with regard to an oath of testimony **is speaking only about** cases involving **a monetary claim? Rabbi Eliezer says:** Multiple instances of the term **“or” are stated here,** with regard to an oath of testimony: “And he hears the voice of an oath and he is a witness or he saw or he knew” (Leviticus 5:1), **and** multiple instances of the term **“or” are stated there,** with regard to an oath on a deposit: “And he deals falsely with his neighbor in a matter of deposit, or of an outstanding loan, or of robbery, or he exploited his colleague, or he found a lost item” (Leviticus 5:21–22); **just as there,** the verse **is speaking only about** cases involving **a monetary claim, so too here,** the verse **is speaking only about** cases involving **a monetary claim.**


###### Shevuot 33b:10
[Shevuot 33b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/33b:10)

״אוֹאִין״ דְּרוֹצֵחַ יוֹכִיחוּ – שֶׁהֵן ״אוֹאִין״, וּמְדַבְּרִים שֶׁלֹּא בִּתְבִיעַת מָמוֹן!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: The multiple instances of the term **“or” that** are stated with regard to **a murderer:** “And if he shoved him with hatred or cast upon him any vessel without lying in wait or in enmity smote him with his hand” (Numbers 35:20–21), **will prove** that multiple instances of the term “or” are unrelated to limiting the application of the *halakha* to cases involving a monetary claim, **as** these **are** multiple instances of the term **“or”** in verses **that are not speaking about** cases involving **a monetary claim.**


###### Shevuot 33b:11
[Shevuot 33b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/33b:11)

דָּנִין ״אוֹאִין״ שֶׁיֵּשׁ עִמָּהֶן שְׁבוּעָה מֵ״אוֹאִין״ שֶׁיֵּשׁ עִמָּהֶן שְׁבוּעָה, וְאַל יוֹכִיחוּ ״אוֹאִין״ דְּרוֹצֵחַ – שֶׁאֵין עִמָּהֶן שְׁבוּעָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **One infers** multiple instances of the term **“or” with which there is an oath** administered, i.e., an oath of testimony, **from** multiple instances of the term **“or” with which there is an oath** administered, i.e., an oath on a deposit, **and** the multiple instances of the term **“or” that** are stated with regard to **a murderer will not prove** anything to the contrary, **as there is no oath in their** context.


###### Shevuot 33b:12
[Shevuot 33b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/33b:12)

״אוֹאִין״ דְּסוֹטָה יוֹכִיחוּ – שֶׁהֵן ״אוֹאִין״, וְיֵשׁ עִמָּהֶן שְׁבוּעָה, וּמְדַבְּרִים שֶׁלֹּא בִּתְבִיעַת מָמוֹן!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: The multiple instances of the term **“or” that** are stated with regard to **a *sota*** in the Torah: “Or if the spirit of jealousy came upon him…or a man upon whom a spirit of jealousy came” (Numbers 5:14, 30), **will prove** that multiple instances of the term are unrelated to a monetary claim, **as** these **are** multiple instances of the term **“or,” and there is an oath** administered by the priest to the *sota* **in their** context, **and** the verse **is speaking about** cases **not** involving **a monetary claim.**


###### Shevuot 33b:13
[Shevuot 33b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/33b:13)

דָּנִין ״אוֹאִין״ שֶׁיֵּשׁ עִמָּהֶן שְׁבוּעָה וְאֵין עִמָּהֶן כֹּהֵן, מֵ״אוֹאִין״ שֶׁיֵּשׁ עִמָּהֶן שְׁבוּעָה וְאֵין עִמָּהֶן כֹּהֵן; וְאַל יוֹכִיחוּ ״אוֹאִין״ דְּרוֹצֵחַ – שֶׁאֵין עִמָּהֶן שְׁבוּעָה; וְאַל יוֹכִיחוּ ״אוֹאִין״ דְּסוֹטָה – שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיֵּשׁ עִמָּהֶן שְׁבוּעָה, יֵשׁ עִמָּהֶן כֹּהֵן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this: **One infers** multiple instances of the term **“or” with which there is an oath** administered **and with which there is no priest** administering it, i.e., the case of an oath of testimony, **from** multiple instances of the term **“or” with which there is an oath** administered **and with which there is no priest** administering it, i.e., an oath on a deposit, **and** the multiple instances of the term **“or” that** are stated with regard to **a murderer will not prove** anything to the contrary, **as there is no oath in their** context, **and** the multiple instances of the term **“or” that** are stated with regard to **a *sota* will not prove** anything to the contrary, **as even though there is an oath in their** context, **there is a priest** administering the oath **in their** context. This is the source from which Rabbi Eliezer proves that liability for an oath of testimony is limited to cases involving a monetary claim.


###### Shevuot 33b:14
[Shevuot 33b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/33b:14)

רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: ״וְהָיָה כִּי יֶאְשַׁם לְאַחַת מֵאֵלֶּה״ – יֵשׁ מֵאֵלֶּה שֶׁהוּא חַיָּיב, וְיֵשׁ מֵאֵלֶּה שֶׁהוּא פָּטוּר. הָא כֵּיצַד? תְּבָעוֹ מָמוֹן – חַיָּיב, דָּבָר אַחֵר – פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Akiva says** that it is written with regard to an oath of testimony: **“And it shall be when he will be guilty of one of these”** (Leviticus 5:5). The term “of these” is a restrictive expression from which it is derived: **There are** some **of these** for **which he is liable and there are** some **of these** for **which he is exempt. How so?** If the plaintiff **demanded** testimony from the witness with regard to **a monetary** claim, the witness is **liable** for taking a false oath; if the plaintiff demanded testimony from the witness with regard to **another matter,** he is **exempt.**


###### Shevuot 33b:15
[Shevuot 33b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/33b:15)

רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי אוֹמֵר: הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר ״וְהוּא עֵד אוֹ רָאָה אוֹ יָדָע״ – בְּעֵדוּת הַמִּתְקַיֶּימֶת בִּרְאִיָּה בְּלֹא יְדִיעָה וּבִידִיעָה בְּלֹא רְאָיָה הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yosei HaGelili** cites a different proof and **says:** The verse **states** with regard to an oath of testimony: **“And he is a witness or he saw or he knew”** (Leviticus 5:1). It is **with regard to testimony that is founded on sight,** i.e., direct observation, **without knowledge** of the matter, **or by means of** indirect **knowledge** of the matter **without sight** that **the verse is speaking.**


###### Shevuot 33b:16
[Shevuot 33b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/33b:16)

רְאִיָּה בְּלֹא יְדִיעָה – כֵּיצַד? ״מָנֶה מָנִיתִי לְךָ בִּפְנֵי פְּלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי״, ״יָבוֹאוּ פְּלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי וְיָעִידוּ״ – זוֹ הִיא רְאִיָּה בְּלֹא יְדִיעָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Sight without knowledge, how so?** It is a case where the creditor claims: **I counted one hundred dinars for you before so-and-so and so-and-so,** and the debtor responds: **Let so-and-so and so-and-so come and testify. This is** a case of **sight without knowledge,** as the witnesses do not know whether the money was counted as a loan, a deposit, or repayment of a loan.


###### Shevuot 33b:17
[Shevuot 33b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/33b:17)

יְדִיעָה בְּלֹא רְאִיָּה – כֵּיצַד? ״מָנֶה הוֹדֵיתָה לִי בִּפְנֵי פְּלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי״, ״יָבוֹאוּ פְּלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי וְיָעִידוּ״ – זוֹ הִיא יְדִיעָה בְּלֹא רְאִיָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Knowledge without sight, how so?** It is a case where the creditor claims: **You admitted to** owing **me one hundred dinars before so-and-so and so-and-so,** and the debtor replied: **Let so-and-so and so-and-so come and testify. This is** a case of **knowledge** of the debt **without sight** of the loan taking place. Testimony based on sight without knowledge or based on knowledge without sight is possible only in cases involving a monetary claim.


###### Shevuot 33b:18
[Shevuot 33b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/33b:18)

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: חִיֵּיב כָּאן וְחִיֵּיב בְּפִקָּדוֹן; מָה לְהַלָּן אֵינוֹ מְדַבֵּר אֶלָּא בִּתְבִיעַת מָמוֹן, אַף כָּאן אֵינוֹ מְדַבֵּר אֶלָּא בִּתְבִיעַת מָמוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Shimon** cites a different proof and **says:** The Torah rendered one **liable** if he takes a false oath **here** with regard to testimony, **and** the Torah rendered one **liable** if he takes a false oath **with regard to a deposit; just as there,** the verse **is speaking** of liability **only in** cases involving **a monetary claim, so too here,** the verse **is speaking** of liability **only in** cases involving **a monetary claim.**


###### Shevuot 33b:19
[Shevuot 33b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/33b:19)

וְעוֹד – קַל וָחוֹמֶר: מָה פִּקָּדוֹן – שֶׁעָשָׂה בּוֹ נָשִׁים כַּאֲנָשִׁים, קְרוֹבִים כִּרְחוֹקִים, פְּסוּלִים כִּכְשֵׁרִים; וְחַיָּיב עַל

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And furthermore,** one can infer this *halakha* by means of **an *a fortiori*** inference from the *halakha* of a deposit. **If** in the case of **a deposit, with regard to which** the Torah **rendered** the halakhic status **of women like** that of **men,** the halakhic status of **relatives like** that of **non-relatives,** and the halakhic status of **unfit** witnesses **like** that of those **fit** to testify, **and** he is **liable for**