Talking Talmud

Different opinions about the oath of testimony on monetary matters and monetary matters only. Note the example of camels and their propensity to bump into each other and even kill other animals, apparently during the mating process. Plus, the question of the degree to which circumstantial evidence would be accepted. Also, the question of liability for a false oath - in monetary claims. And Rabbi Shimon was mocked in the land of Israel - for his view that a case of false oath regarding a deposit (pikadon) can inform the case of an intentional false oath.

2 mishnayot! The administration of witnesses taking a false oath of testimony, apparently along with an oath that they know nothing about what they're being asked to testify about - perhaps swearing falsely, which may or may not entail an offering to atone for it. That requirement may depend on the specifics of the oath. Also, what about testimony about one's status -- and the oath taken in that context. Plus, the significant difference between a case of status that involves a kohen to adjudicate and administer an oath - as compared to murder (for example), in court.

When 2 potential witnesses deny any knowledge of the event(s) they're asked to testify about, the claim is that they need to deny at exactly the same time. And since that precise of a time is not possible, perhaps they weren't really liable... (this is the view of R. Yosi HaGlili, who says they could have spoken at "the same time," with a certain amount of time to make a short utterance. Also, the case of one witness -- when that would be acceptable, and when insufficient. Note the eye to the protection of women.

After 4 ways to keep yourself away from falsehood on yesterday's daf, we have another 9 ways here (13 in total) - and all of them fall under this category. Also, who is intended in the category of "those who are not fit to testify" when there's already been a list of those who are not fit to testify!?! Perhaps a king. Perhaps the one who plays with dice. Also, a new mishnah: defining the oath of testimony (swearing that they have nothing to say on behalf of the plaintiff). Including the concern that one denies having anything to say about several cases - that will mean a liability for each false oath taken.

Chapter 4! On the "oath of testimony" - the witness swears on the Bible that his testimony is correct, as rooted in a verse in Vayikra/Leviticus, as formal court proceedings. A new mishnah: This oath of testimony is only issued to men. An other points of trustworthiness. But how valid is that testimony? Also, note that this "men" is specific - to exclude women, as compared to other more generic uses. Of course, there are other circumstances where women's testimony is acceptable. Plus, the formality of witnesses standing while giving testimony.

2 mishnayot! 1 - If someone swears that something is factually incorrect is in fact true, or if someone swears about something that is impossible to have seen. But what if he's swearing to something as he understands it? There's concern about the plain meaning of words as people understand them. 2 - Oaths that one takes to confirm that one's statement is true - shevuat bitui - in contrast to the one taken in court. Plus, one who says "Amen" to a formulation of an oath without uttering all the words of the oath is akin to one who did utter all of the words. It amounts to taking an oath.

What about conditional oaths? That means one oath forbids something, but the second may not. Unless he engineered the events of the first one, and neglected the second one. Also, the story of the brothers Eifa and Avimi, and their learning of Shevuot in the beit midrash.

A new Mishnah! With exceptions to the basic laws of oaths - for example, if one swears not to fulfill a mitzvah. Rabbi Yehudah ben Beterah says that one who makes an oath that you're not allowed to make would still entail a violation, but the Tanna Kama seems to think that it wouldn't count as violating. Likewise, an issue to swear on a mitzvah to keep it. Plus, another new mishnah! Different wordings of swearing off something, though in the end, he would only be held accountable or on punishment. This "shevuot bitui" - risks the false oath in the intentional breaking of the oath - and needing lashes.. And an oath in vain?

More on the tannaitic dispute of the previous daf. Delineating the logic of amplification - ribui u-miyut vs. kelal u-prat u-kelal. They're two different schools of thought, and the rationale holds across the Talmud, for each of them. But they're also very similar. Plus, taking an oath in an unavoidable way. Also, one who took an oath, but he forgot about the item he had foresworn... Likewise, forgetting an oath itself -- these aspects of forgetting will affect whether an offering is required. Including some mockery from the colleagues in the land of Israel. Plus, the case of someone who unwittingly breaks his oath -- what if he had remembered? Would he have broken the oath anyway, or not?

A new mishnah! Taking a false oath about the past, or an oath about the future, which is not upheld, which turns it into a false oath, about tangible or intangible matters, means a sliding scale offering. Likewise, if it pertains to other people. Plus, the stringencies of oaths (shevuot) vs. vows (nedarim), with regard to each other. Also, if a person swears about another party - falsely - either that person needs to bring the sacrifice or not - a large debate. Oaths also seem to pertain to matters that are either good or bad - and a textual inference is necessary to present them as not necessarily being harmful or beneficial. Rabbi Akiva vs. Rabbi Yishmael, and Rav vs. Shmuel -- which is not the same dispute, though we might have thought they were. Plus, the formulation with regard to oaths to make them oaths.