## Shevuot Daf 34b

###### Shevuot 34b:1
[Shevuot 34b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/34b:1)

וְעֵדִים רוֹאִין אוֹתוֹ מִבַּחוּץ, מַאי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**and witnesses see him** counting the money **from outside, what** is the *halakha*? Is their testimony accepted?


###### Shevuot 34b:2
[Shevuot 34b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/34b:2)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב הַמְנוּנָא: וְהַלָּה מָה טוֹעֵן? אִי אָמַר: ״לֹא הָיוּ דְבָרִים מֵעוֹלָם״ – הוּחְזַק כַּפְרָן! אִי אָמַר: ״אִין, שְׁקַלִי – וְדִידִי שְׁקַלִי״ – כִּי אָתוּ עֵדִים מַאי הָוֵי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הַמְנוּנָא אַתְּ? עוּל תָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Hamnuna said to** Rav Yehuda: **And what does the other** person **claim** in response to the demand for repayment? **If he says:** These **matters never happened, he assumes the presumptive status of a denier** of the truth, as the witnesses testify that they saw the claimant counting the money and giving it to him. **If he says: Yes, I took** money from him, **but** it is **my** money that **I took,** then **when** the **witnesses come** and testify that they saw the claimant counting the money and giving it to him, **what of it?** The testimony of the witnesses does not contradict his claim, as the witnesses do not know the circumstances under which the money changed hands. Rav Yehuda **said to him: Are you Hamnuna? Enter** and **come** into the study hall, as you make your teacher wiser.


###### Shevuot 34b:3
[Shevuot 34b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/34b:3)

הָהוּא דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ לְחַבְרֵיהּ: ״מָנֶה מָנִיתִי לְךָ בְּצַד עַמּוּד זֶה״, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״לֹא עָבַרְתִּי בְּצַד עַמּוּד זֶה״. אֲתוֹ תְּרֵי סָהֲדִי, אַסְהִידוּ בֵּיהּ דְּהִשְׁתִּין מַיִם בְּצַד עַמּוּד זֶה. אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: הוּחְזַק כַּפְרָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates a similar incident: There was **a certain** individual **who said to another: I counted for you** and gave you **one hundred dinars** as a loan **alongside this column.** The other person **said to him** in response: **I did not pass alongside this column. Two witnesses came and testified about him** that they saw **that he urinated alongside this column. Reish Lakish said: He assumes the presumptive status of a denier** of the truth, as the testimony of witnesses proves that he passed alongside the column.


###### Shevuot 34b:4
[Shevuot 34b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/34b:4)

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב נַחְמָן: הַאי דִּינָא פָּרְסָאָה הוּא! מִי קָאָמַר ״מֵעוֹלָם״?! בְּעֵסֶק זֶה קָאָמַר לֵיהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Naḥman objects to this: That is a ruling** characteristic of **a Persian** court, not a reasonable ruling characteristic of a Jewish court. **Did** the respondent **say** that he **never** passed alongside the column? It was that he did not pass alongside the column **in** the context of **this matter** that **he said to him** that he did not pass the column; therefore, the testimony of the witnesses does not contradict his statement.


###### Shevuot 34b:5
[Shevuot 34b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/34b:5)

אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, הָהוּא דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ לְחַבְרֵיהּ: ״מָנֶה מָנִיתִי לְךָ בְּצַד עַמּוּד זֶה״, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״לֹא עָבַרְתִּי בְּצַד עַמּוּד זֶה מֵעוֹלָם״. נְפַקוּ בֵּיהּ סָהֲדִי דְּהִשְׁתִּין מַיִם בְּצַד עַמּוּד זֶה. אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: הוּחְזַק כַּפְרָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**There are** those **who say** that the incident transpired a bit differently. There was **a certain** individual **who said to another: I counted for you** and gave you **one hundred dinars** as a loan **alongside this column.** The other person **said to him** in response: **I never passed alongside this column. Witnesses emerged** and testified **concerning him that he urinated alongside this column. Rav Naḥman said: He assumes the presumptive status of a denier** of the truth, as the witnesses contradicted his claim.


###### Shevuot 34b:6
[Shevuot 34b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/34b:6)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא לְרַב נַחְמָן: כֹּל מִילְּתָא דְּלָא רַמְיָא עֲלֵיהּ דְּאִינִישׁ, עָבֵיד לַהּ וְלָאו אַדַּעְתֵּיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said to Rav Naḥman:** There is no proof from here that he assumes the presumptive status of a denier, as **any matter that is not incumbent upon a person** to remember, **he performs it and it is not on his mind.** Therefore, when he denied ever passing alongside the column, it was because there was never any reason for him to remember that he had been there.


###### Shevuot 34b:7
[Shevuot 34b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/34b:7)

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: חִיֵּיב כָּאן וְחִיֵּיב בְּפִקָּדוֹן כּוּ׳.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara proceeds to cite the opinion cited last in the *baraita* explaining the source of the *halakha* that one is liable for taking a false oath of testimony only for a case involving monetary matters. **Rabbi Shimon says:** The Torah **rendered** one **liable** if he takes a false oath **here,** with regard to an oath of testimony, **and** the Torah **rendered** one **liable** if he takes a false oath **with regard to** an oath on **a deposit;** just as there, the verse is speaking of liability only in cases involving monetary claims, so too here, the verse is speaking of liability only in cases involving monetary claims.


###### Shevuot 34b:8
[Shevuot 34b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/34b:8)

מַחֲכוּ עֲלַהּ בְּמַעְרְבָא. מַאי חוּכָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**They mocked** this proof **in the West,** i.e., Eretz Yisrael. The Gemara asked: **What** is worthy of **mockery** in the statement of Rabbi Shimon?


###### Shevuot 34b:9
[Shevuot 34b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/34b:9)

דְּקָתָנֵי: מָה לְפִקָּדוֹן, שֶׁכֵּן לֹא עָשָׂה בּוֹ מוּשְׁבָּע כַּנִּשְׁבָּע, מֵזִיד כַּשּׁוֹגֵג.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains that they mocked **that** which the *baraita* **teaches** in the continuation, rejecting the *a fortiori* inference suggested by Rabbi Shimon: **What** is notable **about** the case of **a deposit?** It is notable in **that with regard to** a deposit the Torah **did not render** the halakhic status of **one to whom an oath was administered** by others **like** that of **one who** himself **took an oath,** as one to whom an oath was administered by others is exempt; and the Torah did not render the halakhic status of one who takes **an intentional** false oath **like** that of one who takes **an unwitting** false oath.


###### Shevuot 34b:10
[Shevuot 34b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/34b:10)

מִכְּדֵי מוּשְׁבָּע מִפִּי עַצְמוֹ בְּעֵדוּת, לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מְנָא לֵיהּ – דִּגְמַר מִפִּקָּדוֹן; פִּקָּדוֹן נָמֵי – מוּשְׁבָּע מִפִּי אֲחֵרִים, נִגְמַר מֵעֵדוּת!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This rejection is difficult: **Now,** with regard to the fact that **one who administered an oath to himself** is liable **in** the case of an oath of **testimony, from where** is it derived **according to Rabbi Shimon?** Rabbi Shimon **derives** it by means of a verbal analogy **from** an oath on **a deposit.** If so, based on the same verbal analogy, in the case of an oath on **a deposit too, let us derive from** the case of an oath of **testimony** the fact that one is liable for a false **oath** that **was administered by others.**


###### Shevuot 34b:11
[Shevuot 34b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/34b:11)

וּמַאי חוּכָא? דִּלְמָא רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בְּקַל וָחוֹמֶר מַיְיתֵי לַהּ: מִפִּי אֲחֵרִים חַיָּיב – מִפִּי עַצְמוֹ לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this: **And what** is worthy of **mockery** in that statement? **Perhaps Rabbi Shimon** does not derive that one who takes a false oath of testimony on his own is liable by means of a verbal analogy from an oath on a deposit; rather, **he derives it by means of an *a fortiori*** inference: If **one is liable** for a false oath of testimony **administered by others, is it not all the more so** that he is liable for an oath that he takes **on his own?**


###### Shevuot 34b:12
[Shevuot 34b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/34b:12)

אֶלָּא חוּכָא אַמֵּזִיד כַּשּׁוֹגֵג – דְּקָתָנֵי: מָה לְפִקָּדוֹן – שֶׁכֵּן לֹא עָשָׂה בּוֹ מוּשְׁבָּע כַּנִּשְׁבָּע, מֵזִיד כַּשּׁוֹגֵג.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Rather, the mockery is with regard to** the distinction between an oath on a deposit and an oath of testimony in the matter of whether the halakhic status of one who takes **an intentional** false oath is **like** that of one who takes **an unwitting** false oath, **as it teaches** in the *baraita*: **What** is notable **about** the case of **a deposit?** It is notable in **that with regard to** a deposit the Torah **did not render** the halakhic status of **one to whom an oath was administered** by others **like** that of **one who** himself **took an oath,** as one to whom an oath was administered by others is exempt; and the Torah did not render the halakhic status of one who takes **an intentional** false oath **like** that of one who takes **an unwitting** false oath.


###### Shevuot 34b:13
[Shevuot 34b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/34b:13)

מִכְּדֵי מֵזִיד גַּבֵּי עֵדוּת מְנָא לֵיהּ – דְּלָא כְּתִיב בֵּיהּ ״וְנֶעֱלַם״; הָכָא נָמֵי לָא כְּתִיב בֵּיהּ ״וְנֶעֱלַם״!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Now, from where does he** derive that one who takes **an intentional** false oath of **testimony** is liable? He derives it **as it is not written in** the context of an oath of testimony: **And it is hidden. Here too, it is not written in** the context of an oath on a deposit: **And it is hidden.** Therefore, there should be no distinction between intentional and unwitting with regard to an oath on a deposit either.


###### Shevuot 34b:14
[Shevuot 34b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/34b:14)

אֲמַר לְהוּ רַב הוּנָא: וּמַאי חוּכָא? דִּלְמָא מֵזִיד דְּלָאו כַּשּׁוֹגֵג בְּפִקָּדוֹן, מִמְּעִילָה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן גָּמַר לַהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Huna said to** the Sages: **And what** is worthy of **mockery** in that statement? **Perhaps** the fact **that** the halakhic status of one who takes **an intentional** false oath **is not like** that of one who takes **an unwitting** false oath **in** the case of **a deposit,** and it is **from** the *halakhot* of **misuse** of consecrated property that **Rabbi Shimon derived it.** Just as one is liable to bring a guilt-offering for the misuse of consecrated property only if he did so unwittingly, one is liable to bring a guilt-offering for a false oath on a deposit only if he unwittingly took the false oath.


###### Shevuot 34b:15
[Shevuot 34b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/34b:15)

וְהַיְינוּ חוּכָא – אַדְּגָמַר לַהּ מִמְּעִילָה, נִגְמַר לַהּ מֵעֵדוּת!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **And that is** what is worthy of **mockery. Instead of deriving** the lack of liability for an intentional false oath of deposit **from** the case of **misuse** of consecrated property, **let him derive** liability for an intentional false oath on a deposit **from** the case of an oath of **testimony.**


###### Shevuot 34b:16
[Shevuot 34b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/34b:16)

מִסְתַּבְּרָא מִמְּעִילָה הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְמֵילַף, שֶׁכֵּן מְעִילָה מִמְּעִילָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this: **It stands to reason** that **he should have derived** it **from** the case of **misuse** of consecrated property, **as** that is a derivation of **misuse** written with regard to an oath on a deposit: “If any one shall sin and commits an act of misuse and dealt falsely with his colleague in a matter of deposit” (Leviticus 5:21), which is derived **from misuse** written with regard to misuse of consecrated property: “If any one commits an act of misuse and sinned unwittingly from items consecrated to the Lord” (Leviticus 5:15).


###### Shevuot 34b:17
[Shevuot 34b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/34b:17)

אַדְּרַבָּה – מֵעֵדוּת הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְמֵילַף, שֶׁכֵּן ״תֶּחֱטָא״ מִ״תֶּחֱטָא״!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **On the contrary, he should have derived** it **from** the case of an oath of **testimony, as** that is a derivation of **“shall sin”** written with regard to an oath on a deposit which is derived **from “shall sin”** written with regard to an oath of testimony: “And if any one shall sin and he hears the voice of an oath, and he is a witness” (Leviticus 5:1).


###### Shevuot 34b:18
[Shevuot 34b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/34b:18)

מִסְתַּבְּרָא מִמְּעִילָה הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְמֵילַף, שֶׁכֵּן מְעִילָה; בַּכֹּל; נֶהֱנֶה; בְּקָבוּעַ; חוֹמֶשׁ; וְאָשָׁם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this: **It stands to reason** that it is **from** the case of **misuse** of consecrated property that **he should have derived** it, **as** there are many elements common to an oath on a deposit and misuse of consecrated property represented by the mnemonic: **Misuse, with regard to all, derive benefit, with fixed, one-fifth, and guilt-offering.** The term misuse is employed in both cases. Both cases are relevant with regard to all individuals and not only those fit to testify. Both involve one deriving benefit from property that is not his. In both cases, one is liable to bring a fixed guilt-offering, as opposed to one who takes a false oath of testimony, who is liable to bring a sliding-scale offering. In both cases, one adds one-fifth to the payment of the principal. In both cases, that is the offering with which one gains atonement.


###### Shevuot 34b:19
[Shevuot 34b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/34b:19)

אַדְּרַבָּה – מֵעֵדוּת הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְמֵילַף, שֶׁכֵּן חֵטְא; הֶדְיוֹט; בִּשְׁבוּעָה; תַּבְעֵיהּ וְכַפְרֵיהּ; וְ״אוֹאִין״! הָנָךְ נְפִישִׁין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this: **On the contrary, he should have derived** the *halakha* with regard to an oath on a deposit **from** the *halakha* of an oath of **testimony, as** there are many elements common to both oaths represented by the mnemonic: **Sin, ordinary** [***hedyot***], **with an oath, claimed** from **him, denied his** claim, **and** multiple instances of the term **“or.”** The term “shall sin” is written in both contexts. Both oaths relate to the property of ordinary individuals, not to consecrated property. In both cases there is a claim presented by one of the parties and denial of that claim by the one taking the oath. Multiple instances of the term “or” appear in both passages in the Torah. The Gemara responds: **These** elements common to an oath on a deposit and misuse of consecrated property are more **numerous** than the elements common to an oath on a deposit and an oath of testimony.


###### Shevuot 34b:20
[Shevuot 34b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/34b:20)

אֶלָּא מַאי חוּכָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** after resolving all the difficulties that were raised against the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, the question remains: **What** did the Sages of Eretz Yisrael find that is worthy of **mockery** in that *baraita*?


###### Shevuot 34b:21
[Shevuot 34b:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/34b:21)

כִּי אֲתָא רַב פָּפָּא וְרַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ מִבֵּי רַב, אָמְרִי: הַיְינוּ חוּכָא – מִכְּדֵי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן גְּזֵירָה שָׁוָה גְּמִיר, לְמָה לֵיהּ דְּפָרֵיךְ: מָה לְפִקָּדוֹן שֶׁכֵּן לֹא עָשָׂה בּוֹ מוּשְׁבָּע כַּנִּשְׁבָּע, מֵזִיד כַּשּׁוֹגֵג?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**When Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, came from the study hall of** their **teacher, they said: This is** what is worthy of **mockery: Now,** since ultimately **Rabbi Shimon derives** the *halakha* by means of **a verbal analogy** between the term “shall sin” written with regard to an oath on a deposit and the term “shall sin” written with regard to an oath of testimony, **why** is it **that he refutes** the parallel between them by saying: **What** is notable **about** the case of **a deposit?** It is notable in **that with regard to** a deposit the Torah **did not render** the halakhic status of **one to whom an oath was administered** by others **like** that of **one who** himself **took an oath,** as one to whom an oath was administered by others is exempt; and the Torah did not render the halakhic status of one who takes **an intentional** false oath **like** that of one who takes **an unwitting** false oath. Rabbi Shimon should have derived by means of the verbal analogy that all the *halakhot* of an oath of testimony and all the *halakhot* of an oath on a deposit are identical.


###### Shevuot 34b:22
[Shevuot 34b:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/34b:22)

וּמַאי חוּכָא? דִּלְמָא כִּי פָּרֵיךְ – מִקַּמֵּי דְּתֵיקוּם לֵיהּ גְּזֵירָה שָׁוָה; בָּתַר דְּקָמָא לֵיהּ גְּזֵירָה שָׁוָה לָא פָּרֵיךְ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this: **And what** is worthy of **mockery** in that statement? **Perhaps when** Rabbi Shimon **refuted** the parallel between the two oaths, it was **prior to the verbal analogy being established for him,** and the derivation was by means of a paradigm. **After the verbal analogy was established for him, he does not refute** the parallel and holds that in the case of an oath on a deposit one is liable to bring a guilt-offering for false oaths administered by others as well as for intentional false oaths.


###### Shevuot 34b:23
[Shevuot 34b:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/34b:23)

וְלָא?! וְהָאָמַר לְהוּ רָבָא בַּר אִיתַּי לְרַבָּנַן: מַאן תָּנָא שְׁבוּעַת הַפִּקָּדוֹן לֹא נִיתַּן זְדוֹנָהּ לְכַפָּרָה – רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** does Rabbi Shimon **not** refute the parallel between the two oaths? **But didn’t Rava bar Ittai say to the Sages: Who** is the *tanna* who **taught** with regard to **an oath on a deposit** that **atonement** by means of an offering **is not possible** for one who takes **an intentional** false oath? **It is Rabbi Shimon.** Apparently, Rabbi Shimon concludes that there remains a distinction between intentional and unwitting in the case of an oath on a deposit.


###### Shevuot 34b:24
[Shevuot 34b:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/34b:24)

דִּלְמָא מֵזִיד כַּשּׁוֹגֵג פָּרֵיךְ, דְּגָמַר לַהּ מִמְּעִילָה, דְּהָנָךְ נְפִישִׁין; אֲבָל מוּשְׁבָּע כַּנִּשְׁבָּע לָא פָּרֵיךְ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Perhaps** with regard to the halakhic status of one who takes **an intentional** false oath being **like** that of one who takes **an unwitting** false oath, Rabbi Shimon **refutes** the parallel between the two oaths even after the verbal analogy is established for him, **as he derives** the *halakha* of an oath on a deposit **from** the *halakha* of **misuse** of consecrated property, where there is a distinction between intentional and unwitting, **as those** elements common to an oath on a deposit and the misuse of consecrated property are more **numerous** than the elements common to an oath on a deposit and an oath of testimony. **But he does not refute** the parallel between the two oaths with the claim that there is a distinction between them with regard to whether the halakhic status of **one to whom an oath was administered** by others is **like** that of **one who** himself **took an oath.** Once the verbal analogy was established for him, there is no longer a distinction between the two oaths in that regard.


###### Shevuot 34b:25
[Shevuot 34b:25](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/34b:25)

וְתֶהְדַּר עֵדוּת וְתִגְמֵר לַהּ מִפִּקָּדוֹן, מֵזִיד דְּלָאו כַּשּׁוֹגֵג – מָה פִּקָּדוֹן, שׁוֹגֵג אִין מֵזִיד לָא; אַף עֵדוּת, שׁוֹגֵג אִין מֵזִיד לָא – כִּי הֵיכִי דְּיָלֵיף פִּקָּדוֹן מִמְּעִילָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: If, according to Rabbi Shimon, based on the derivation from the misuse of consecrated property, one who intentionally takes a false oath on a deposit does not bring a guilt-offering like one who took the false oath unwittingly, **let** the discussion of the case of an oath of **testimony return** to the verbal analogy **and derive it from** the case of an oath on **a deposit that** the halakhic status of one who takes **an intentional** false oath **is not like** that of one who takes **an unwitting** false oath. **Just as** in the case of an oath on **a deposit,** one who takes **an unwitting** false oath, **yes,** he is liable to bring a guilt-offering, and one who takes **an intentional** false oath, **no,** he is not liable, **so too,** in the case of an oath of **testimony,** one who takes **an unwitting** false oath, **yes,** he is liable to bring a sin-offering, and one who takes **an intentional** false oath, **no,** he is not liable, **just as he derives** the case of an oath on **a deposit from** the case of **misuse** of consecrated property.