## Shevuot Daf 37a

###### Shevuot 37a:1
[Shevuot 37a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/37a:1)

לְהוּ: הֵזִיד בִּשְׁבוּעַת הַפִּקָּדוֹן וְהִתְרוּ בּוֹ, מַהוּ? כֵּיוָן דְּחִידּוּשׁ הוּא – דִּבְכׇל הַתּוֹרָה לָא אַשְׁכְּחַן מֵזִיד דְּמַיְיתֵי קׇרְבָּן, וְהָכָא מַיְיתֵי קׇרְבָּן – לָא שְׁנָא אַתְרוֹ בֵּיהּ וְלָא שְׁנָא לָא אַתְרוֹ בֵּיהּ? אוֹ דִּלְמָא, הָנֵי מִילֵּי הֵיכָא דְּלָא אַתְרוֹ בֵּיהּ; אֲבָל הֵיכָא דְּאַתְרוֹ בֵּיהּ – מִילְקָא לָקֵי, קׇרְבָּן לָא מַיְיתֵי; אוֹ דִלְמָא, הָא וְהָא עָבְדִינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**to them:** If one **intentionally** took a false **oath on a deposit and** witnesses **forewarned him, what is** the *halakha*? Is it the case that **since** the *halakha* of an oath on a deposit **is a novelty, as in the entire Torah we do not find** another case where one who transgressed **intentionally brings an offering** for atonement, **but here** he does **bring an offering** for transgressing the prohibition intentionally, there **is no difference** whether witnesses **forewarned him and** there **is no difference** whether **they did not forewarn him,** and he is liable to bring a guilt-offering, though generally, there is no offering brought when there was forewarning? **Or perhaps, that matter** of bringing a guilt-offering when one intentionally takes a false oath applies only **when they did not forewarn him; but when they forewarned him,** he is **flogged,** as this is the standard punishment for an intentional transgression, and he does **not bring an offering. Or perhaps, we impose both** lashes and a guilt-offering.


###### Shevuot 37a:2
[Shevuot 37a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/37a:2)

אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ, תְּנֵינָא: חֲמוּרָה הֵימֶנָּה שְׁבוּעַת הַפִּקָּדוֹן, שֶׁחַיָּיבִין עַל זְדוֹנָהּ מַכּוֹת וְעַל שִׁגְגָתָהּ אָשָׁם בְּכֶסֶף שְׁקָלִים. מִדְּקָאָמַר לֵיהּ עַל זְדוֹנָהּ מַכּוֹת – מִכְּלָל דְּאַתְרוֹ בֵּיהּ; וְקָאָמַר מַכּוֹת אִין, קׇרְבָּן לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**They said to** Rav Kahana: **We learn** in a *baraita*: The *halakhot* of an **oath on a deposit are more stringent than** the *halakhot* of an oath of testimony, **as** one is **liable** to receive **lashes for intentionally** taking a false oath on a deposit, **and for unwittingly** taking a false oath on a deposit one is liable to bring **a guilt-offering worth** at least two **silver shekels;** whereas one who takes a false oath of testimony, whether intentionally or unwittingly, brings a sin-offering. **From** the fact **that** the *baraita* **states** that **for intentionally** taking a false oath on a deposit one **is liable** to receive **lashes, by inference** it can be understood that the *baraita* is referring to a case where witnesses **forewarned him,** as one cannot receive lashes without forewarning, **and it is stating: Yes,** he is liable to receive **lashes,** but he is **not** liable to bring **an offering.** The *baraita*, then, resolves the question of Rav Kahana.


###### Shevuot 37a:3
[Shevuot 37a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/37a:3)

וּמַאי חוּמְרָא? דְּנִיחָא לֵיהּ לְאִינִישׁ דְּמַיְיתֵי קׇרְבָּן וְלָא לִילְקֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara elaborates: **And what is the stringency** in the fact that one who intentionally takes a false oath on a deposit receives lashes? It is due to the fact that **a person prefers to bring an offering rather than receive lashes.**


###### Shevuot 37a:4
[Shevuot 37a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/37a:4)

אֲמַר לְהוּ רָבָא בַּר אִיתַּי: מַאן תָּנָא זְדוֹן שְׁבוּעַת הַפִּקָּדוֹן לֹא נִיתַּן לְכַפָּרָה – רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן; אֲבָל לְרַבָּנַן – קׇרְבָּן נָמֵי מַיְיתֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava bar Itai said to** the students of Rabba: You cannot answer the question from that *baraita*, as **who** is the *tanna* who **taught** that **intentionally** taking **a false oath on a deposit is not subject to atonement?** It is **Rabbi Shimon. But** according **to the Rabbis,** he is liable to **bring** a guilt-**offering, as well** as receiving lashes. Therefore, the question remains unanswered.


###### Shevuot 37a:5
[Shevuot 37a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/37a:5)

אֲמַר לְהוּ רַב כָּהֲנָא: בַּר מִינַּהּ דְּהַהִיא; דַּאֲנָא תָּנֵינָא לַהּ – וְהָכִי תָּנֵינָא לַהּ: אֶחָד זְדוֹנָהּ וְאֶחָד שִׁגְגָתָהּ, אָשָׁם בְּכֶסֶף שְׁקָלִים. וּמַאי חוּמְרָא? דְּאִילּוּ הָתָם חַטָּאת בַּת דַּנְקָא, וְהָכָא אָשָׁם בְּכֶסֶף שְׁקָלִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Kahana said to** the students: **Apart from this,** you cannot answer my question from this *baraita*, **as I** am the one who **teaches** this *baraita* **and this** is how **I teach it:** An oath on a deposit is more stringent than an oath of testimony, since for taking a false oath on a deposit **either intentionally or unwittingly** one is liable to bring **a guilt-offering worth** at least two **silver shekels. And what** is **the stringency** in this *halakha*? It is **that there,** with regard to an oath of testimony, he is liable to bring **a sin-offering** that can be **worth** even **one-sixth** of one dinar, **and here,** the **guilt-offering** incurred for an oath on a deposit must be **worth** at least two **silver shekels.**


###### Shevuot 37a:6
[Shevuot 37a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/37a:6)

וְלִיגְמַר מִינַּהּ! דִּלְמָא דְּלָא אַתְרוֹ בֵּיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **And let him derive** an answer to his question **from** his version of the *baraita*, which indicates that one who intentionally takes a false oath on a deposit brings an offering and does not receive lashes. The Gemara responds: **Perhaps** it is referring to a case **where they did not forewarn him;** had he been forewarned, he would be flogged.


###### Shevuot 37a:7
[Shevuot 37a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/37a:7)

לִישָּׁנָא אַחֲרִינָא, תָּא שְׁמַע: אֵין חַיָּיבִין עַל שִׁגְגָתָהּ. מָה הֵן חַיָּיבִין עַל זְדוֹנָהּ? אָשָׁם בְּכֶסֶף שְׁקָלִים. מַאי, לָאו בִּדְאַתְרוֹ בֵּיהּ? הָכָא נָמֵי דְּלָא אַתְרוֹ בֵּיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara presents **a different version** of the previous discussion: **Come** and **hear** an answer to the question of Rav Kahana from the mishna: **One is not liable for** taking a false oath on a deposit **unwittingly.** And **what is he liable for** when he **intentionally** takes a false oath? **A guilt-offering worth** at least two **silver shekels.** The Gemara explains: **What, is it not** that the mishna is referring to a case **where** witnesses **forewarned him,** and the mishna nevertheless rules only that he must bring an offering? The Gemara rejects the proof: **Here, too,** the mishna is referring to a case **where** the witnesses **did not forewarn him.**


###### Shevuot 37a:8
[Shevuot 37a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/37a:8)

תָּא שְׁמַע: לֹא; אִם אָמַרְתָּ בְּנָזִיר טָמֵא – שֶׁכֵּן לוֹקֶה; תֹּאמַר בִּשְׁבוּעַת הַפִּקָּדוֹן – שֶׁאֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה?! מִדְּקָאָמַר לוֹקֶה – מִכְּלָל דְּאַתְרוֹ בֵּיהּ; וְקָאָמַר תֹּאמַר בִּשְׁבוּעַת הַפִּקָּדוֹן שֶׁאֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה – אֲבָל קׇרְבָּן מַיְיתֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues to seek an answer to Rav Kahana’s question: **Come** and **hear** an answer from a *baraita*. After comparing the case of a nazirite to one who takes an oath on a deposit, the *baraita* states: **No, if you said** that the *halakha* that *baraita* discusses is true **with regard to an impure nazirite, who is indeed flogged** for intentionally becoming impure, **shall you** also **say** that this is the case **with regard to** one who took **an oath on a deposit, who is not flogged?** The Gemara notes: Now, **from** the fact **that** the *baraita* **states** that a nazirite **is flogged, by inference** it can be understood that the *baraita* is referring to a case **where** witnesses **forewarned him,** as one is not liable to receive lashes without forewarning; **and** yet the *baraita* **states: Shall you say** that this is the case **with regard to** one who took **an oath on a deposit, who is not flogged?** One can infer: **But** he does **bring** a guilt-**offering.**


###### Shevuot 37a:9
[Shevuot 37a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/37a:9)

מַאי אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה – דְּאֵינוֹ נִפְטָר בְּמַלְקוֹת. מִכְּלָל דְּנָזִיר טָמֵא נִפְטָר בְּמַלְקוֹת?! הָא ״קׇרְבָּן״ כְּתִיב בֵּיהּ! הָתָם דְּמַיְיתֵי קׇרְבָּן כִּי הֵיכִי דְּתֵיחוּל עֲלֵיהּ נְזִירוּת בְּטׇהֳרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects the proof: **What** does the *baraita* mean when it states that **he is not flogged?** It means **that** he is **not exempted through lashes** alone and he must also bring an offering. The Gemara asks: **By inference,** does this mean **that an impure nazirite is exempted through lashes** alone? **Isn’t it written** in the Torah explicitly **with regard to him** that there is a requirement to bring **an offering?** The Gemara responds: The offering brought by an impure nazirite does not serve as an atonement. Rather, **there,** the nazirite **brings an offering in order** to purify himself so **that his naziriteship can go into effect** while he is **in** a state of **purity.** The offering must be brought even if the nazirite became impure unwittingly.


###### Shevuot 37a:10
[Shevuot 37a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/37a:10)

אַמְרוּהָ רַבָּנַן קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבָּה. אֲמַר לְהוּ: מִכְּלָל דְּכִי לָא אַתְרוֹ בֵּיהּ וְאִיכָּא עֵדִים – מִיחַיַּיב?! כְּפִירַת דְּבָרִים בְּעָלְמָא הוּא! אַלְמָא קָסָבַר רַבָּה: הַכּוֹפֵר בְּמָמוֹן שֶׁיֵּשׁ עָלָיו עֵדִים – פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Sages said** this matter **before Rabba,** i.e., they related the question of Rav Kahana as to whether one who intentionally takes a false oath and was forewarned by witnesses is liable to bring an offering. Rabba **said to them:** May one conclude **by inference that** in a case **when they did not warn him but there are witnesses** to the fact that the defendant owes money to the claimant, **he is liable** to bring an offering? Isn’t this case **merely a verbal denial** that does not have any effect with regard to liability to pay? Since there are witnesses who will testify that the defendant owes the claimant, his denial and false oath did not exempt him from payment and he therefore should not be liable to bring a guilt-offering for taking a false oath. The Gemara infers: **Evidently, Rabba holds** that **one who denies a monetary** claim **to which there are witnesses** is **exempt** from bringing a guilt-offering for taking a false oath, since the witnesses will testify to the validity of the claimant’s claim and the denial of the defendant is of no consequence.


###### Shevuot 37a:11
[Shevuot 37a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/37a:11)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב חֲנִינָא לְרַבָּה, תַּנְיָא דִּמְסַיַּיע לָךְ: ״וְכִחֵשׁ בָּהּ״ – פְּרָט לְמוֹדֶה לְאֶחָד מִן הָאַחִין אוֹ לְאֶחָד מִן הַשּׁוּתָּפִין. ״וְנִשְׁבַּע עַל שָׁקֶר״ – פְּרָט לְלֹוֶה בִּשְׁטָר וּלְלֹוֶה בְּעֵדִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ḥanina said to Rabba:** A *baraita* **is taught that supports your** opinion: The verse states with regard to an oath denying a monetary claim: **“And deal falsely therein”** (Leviticus 5:22), which serves to **exclude one who admits to** the truth of the claim of **one of** a group of **brothers or to one of** a group of **partners,** even if he denies the claim to the rest of the brothers or partners. The same verse also states: **“And swear to a lie,”** which serves to **exclude one who borrows** money **with** a promissory **note or one who borrows** money **in** the presence of **witnesses.** Evidently, one is not liable for taking a false oath concerning a monetary claim when there are witnesses who can testify to it.


###### Shevuot 37a:12
[Shevuot 37a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/37a:12)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִי מִשּׁוּם הָא – לָא תְּסַיְּיעַן; בְּאוֹמֵר ״לָוִיתִי, וְלֹא לָוִיתִי בְּעֵדִים״, ״לָוִיתִי, וְלֹא לָוִיתִי בִּשְׁטָר״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabba **said to him: If** your proof is **because of that** *baraita*, **you have not supported us,** since that *baraita* is referring to a case **where** the defendant **says: I borrowed, but I did not borrow in** the presence of **witnesses,** or he says: **I borrowed, but I did not borrow with** a promissory **note.** Since his denial is only with regard to the circumstances of the loan and not to the actual debt, he is exempt from liability for taking the false oath.


###### Shevuot 37a:13
[Shevuot 37a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/37a:13)

מִמַּאי? מִדְּקָתָנֵי ״וְכִחֵשׁ בָּהּ״ – פְּרָט לְמוֹדֶה לְאֶחָד מִן הָאַחִין אוֹ לְאֶחָד מִן הַשּׁוּתָּפִין. הַאי לְאֶחָד מִן הָאַחִין הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִילֵּימָא דְּאוֹדִי לֵיהּ בְּפַלְגָא דִּידֵיהּ – הָא אִיכָּא כְּפִירָה דְּאִידַּךְ! אֶלָּא לָאו דְּאָמְרִי לֵיהּ: מִתַּרְוֵינַן יְזַפְתְּ; וַאֲמַר לְהוּ: לָא, מֵחַד מִינַּיְיכוּ יְזַפִי – דְּהָוְיָא לֵיהּ כְּפִירַת דְּבָרִים בְּעָלְמָא? וּמִדְּרֵישָׁא כְּפִירַת דְּבָרִים – סֵיפָא נָמֵי כְּפִירַת דְּבָרִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabba elaborates: **From where** in the *baraita* is this explanation apparent? **From** the fact **that it teaches** that the verse **“and deal falsely therein”** serves to **exclude one who admits to one of the brothers or to one of the partners. What are the circumstances of that** case where one admits **to one of the brothers? If we say that he admitted** only **the portion** of the debt owed **to that** brother, then why is he exempt? **Isn’t there the denial** of the claim **of the other** brother, which is a denial of a monetary claim? **Rather, is it not that** the brothers **said to him: You borrowed from both of us, and he said to them: No, I borrowed** all of the amount in question **from** only **one of you, which is merely a verbal denial,** as he admits that he owes the claimed amount and disputes only the circumstances of the debt. **And since the first clause** of the *baraita* is referring to a case of **a verbal denial, the last clause** is **also** referring to **a verbal denial.** Consequently, one cannot cite a proof from this *baraita*.


###### Shevuot 37a:14
[Shevuot 37a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/37a:14)

(סִימָן – חוֹבָה; כִּיתּוֹת; דְּבַעַל הַבַּיִת; חוֹמֶר; נְזִירָא) תָּא שְׁמַע: אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב עַל שִׁגְגָתָהּ. וּמַהוּ חַיָּיב עַל זְדוֹנָהּ? אָשָׁם בְּכֶסֶף שְׁקָלִים. מַאי, לָאו זְדוֹן עֵדִים? לָא, זְדוֹן עַצְמוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara attempts to prove that one who takes a false oath on a deposit is liable to bring an offering even when there are witnesses, and presents **a mnemonic** to remember the series of proofs: **Liability, sets, of the homeowner, stringent, nazirite.** The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** a proof from the mishna: **He is not liable for unwittingly** taking a false oath by itself. **And what is he liable for** when he **intentionally** takes a false oath? He must bring **a guilt-offering worth** at least two **silver shekels.** The Gemara continues: **What, is it not** referring to a case where he **intentionally** denies the claim of **witnesses,** and the mishna nevertheless teaches that he is liable to bring a guilt-offering? The Gemara rejects the proof: **No,** the mishna is referring to a case where there are no witnesses and he admits **on his own** that he **intentionally** took a false oath. Had there been witnesses, he would have been exempt from bringing an offering.


###### Shevuot 37a:15
[Shevuot 37a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/37a:15)

תָּא שְׁמַע: הָיוּ שְׁתֵּי כִּתֵּי עֵדִים, כָּפְרָה הָרִאשׁוֹנָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ כָּפְרָה הַשְּׁנִיָּה – שְׁתֵּיהֶן חַיָּיבוֹת, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיְּכוֹלָה עֵדוּת לְהִתְקַיֵּים בִּשְׁתֵּיהֶן. בִּשְׁלָמָא שְׁנִיָּה תִּחַיַּיב – דְּהָא כָּפְרָה לָהּ כַּת רִאשׁוֹנָה; אֶלָּא רִאשׁוֹנָה אַמַּאי מִיחַיְּיבָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** a proof from a mishna (31b) that discusses an oath of testimony: If **there were two sets of witnesses** who took an oath of testimony, and **the first** set falsely **denied** knowledge of the matter **and then the second** set falsely **denied** knowledge of the matter, **both are liable, because the testimony can exist with either of them.** The Gemara clarifies: **Granted, the second** set **should be liable, since the first set** already **denied** knowledge of the incident and the validity of the claimant’s monetary claim now depends upon their testimony. **But why is** the **first** set **liable?**