Talmud Yerushalmi
Yerushalmi Shevuot 4:6 ירושלמי שבועות ד׳:ו׳
Part of: Chapter 4
Reading: Hebrew · Simple EnglishHebrew · Faithful translationHebrew onlyHebrew · Simple EnglishHebrew · Faithful translationHebrew onlySimple English onlyFaithful translation onlySide by side
משנה: מַשְׁבִּיעַ אֲנִי עֲלֵיכֶם אִם לֹא תָבוֹאוּ וּתְעִידוּנִי שֶׁאֲנִי כֹהֵן שֶׁאֲנִי לֵוִי שֶׁאֵינִי בֶן גְּרוּשָׁה שֶׁאֵינִי בֶן חֲלוּצָה שֶׁאִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי כֹהֵן שֶׁאִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי לֵוִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ בֶן גְרוּשָׁה שֶׁאֵינוֹ בֶן חֲלוּצָה שֶׁאָנַס אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי וּפִתָּה אֶת בִּתּוֹ וְשֶׁחָבַל בִּי בְנִי וְשֶׁחָבַל בִּי חֲבֵרִי וְשֶׁהִדְלִיק גְּדִישִׁי בַשַּׁבָּת הֲרֵי אֵילּוּ פְטוּרִין:
MISHNAH: “I am putting an oath on you that you should come and testify for me that I am a Cohen80Even though the claimant may bring the suit in order to be recognized as a Cohen because he wants to receive a priest’s prebends, the suit is classified as one for status, not for money., that I am a Levite81The same holds for a Levite who may receive tithe., that I am not the son of a divorcee, that I am not the son of a woman having received ḥalîṣah82The last two cases are suits to be declared a qualified priest, not directly for monetary claims., that X raped or seduced his daughter83Capital crimes; the deflowered daughter cannot sue for damages since a possible death sentence precludes damage suits (Terumot 7:1, Notes 19–70)., or that my son injured me77If the son hit his parents without causing a wound, they can sue him for damages; it is a monetary claim. But if he injured them it is a capital crime (Ex. 21:15)., or that my neighbor injured me or set fire to my grain stack on the Sabbath84A capital crime.:” these are not liable85All these suits are not for monetary claims; even though there may be a duty for witnesses to testify, no sacrifice is due for a refusal to obey a summons under oath in a case which never can result in monetary claims..
MISHNAH: “I am putting an oath on you that you should come and testify for me that I am a Cohen80Even though the claimant may bring the suit in order to be recognized as a Cohen because he wants to receive a priest’s prebends, the suit is classified as one for status, not for money., that I am a Levite81The same holds for a Levite who may receive tithe., that I am not the son of a divorcee, that I am not the son of a woman having received ḥalîṣah82The last two cases are suits to be declared a qualified priest, not directly for monetary claims., that X raped or seduced his daughter83Capital crimes; the deflowered daughter cannot sue for damages since a possible death sentence precludes damage suits (Terumot 7:1, Notes 19–70)., or that my son injured me77If the son hit his parents without causing a wound, they can sue him for damages; it is a monetary claim. But if he injured them it is a capital crime (Ex. 21:15)., or that my neighbor injured me or set fire to my grain stack on the Sabbath84A capital crime.:” these are not liable85All these suits are not for monetary claims; even though there may be a duty for witnesses to testify, no sacrifice is due for a refusal to obey a summons under oath in a case which never can result in monetary claims..
הלכה: מַשְׁבִּיעַ אֲנִי עֲלֵיכֶם כול׳. מַשְׁבִּיעַ אֲנִי עֲלֵיכֶם כול׳. נֶפֶשׁ כִּי תֶחֱטָא נֶפֶשׁ כִּי תֶחֱטָא לִגְזֵירָה שָׁוָה. מַה נֶפֶשׁ כִּי תֶחֱטָא שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לְהַלָּן תְּבִיעַת מָמוֹן וְיֵשׁ לוֹ. אַף נֶפֶשׁ כִּי תֶחֱטָא שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לְהַלָּן כָּאן תְּבִיעַת מָמוֹן וְיֵשׁ לוֹ.
HALAKHAH: “I am putting an oath on you,” etc. Halakhah 8: “I am putting an oath on you,” etc. 86Babli 35a, Sifra Ḥova (Wayyiqra 2) Pereq 11(4).A person who would sin, a person who would sin as an equal cut31A comparison of Lev. 5:1 about oaths concerning testimony and 5:21 about the person accused of larceny who swears falsely in purgation by oath; cf. Chapter 3:12, Note 165. The parallel use of identical terms is an equal cut which allows transfer of rules from one occurrence to the other.. Since a person who would sin which was said further on refers to an active monetary claim87There is liability for a sacrifice only if the requested testimony was for the claimant in a suit under the law of obligations. This excludes testimony for the defendant or for the claimant in a suit for breach of promise., also a person who would sin must refer to an active monetary claim.
HALAKHAH: “I am putting an oath on you,” etc. Halakhah 8: “I am putting an oath on you,” etc. 86Babli 35a, Sifra Ḥova (Wayyiqra 2) Pereq 11(4).A person who would sin, a person who would sin as an equal cut31A comparison of Lev. 5:1 about oaths concerning testimony and 5:21 about the person accused of larceny who swears falsely in purgation by oath; cf. Chapter 3:12, Note 165. The parallel use of identical terms is an equal cut which allows transfer of rules from one occurrence to the other.. Since a person who would sin which was said further on refers to an active monetary claim87There is liability for a sacrifice only if the requested testimony was for the claimant in a suit under the law of obligations. This excludes testimony for the defendant or for the claimant in a suit for breach of promise., also a person who would sin must refer to an active monetary claim.
מַשְׁבִּיעַ אֲנִי עֲלֵיכֶם וכול׳. לֵית הָדָא פְלִיגָא עַל רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ דְּאָמַר. אֵין מָמוֹן אֵצֶל מַכּוֹת. פָּתַר לָהּ כְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר דְּאָמַר. לוֹקֶה וּמְשַׁלֵּם. מִכָּל מָקוֹם לֹא הִפְסִידוֹ מָמוֹן. כֵּיוָן דְּלָא הֲוָה בָעֵי מִיתַּן לֵיהּ וְלָא יְהַב לֵיהּ כְּמִי שֶׁהִפְסִידוֹ מָמוֹן.
“I am putting an oath on you,” etc. Does this not disagree with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who said, there is no money when there is flogging90It seems that this paragraph refers to Mishnah 7 (and in the Leiden ms. Halakhah 9 precedes Halakhot 7 and 8) declaring that a claim about damage on the Day of Atonement is a monetary claim which according to Terumot 7:1 Note 51 is true only for R. Joḥanan but not for R. Simeon ben Laqish. The latter holds that since a violation of the Day of Atonement in front of witnesses after due warning will expose the perpetrator to flogging, there can be no monetary claim even if there are no witnesses and the case of desecration is not one for the courts.. He explains it following Rebbi Meїr who said, he is flogged and he pays91The same explanation is given in Terumot 7:1 Note 7. Cf. Babli Ketubot 33b.. In any case he did not make him lose money. Is it not that since he wanted to give him but did not give to him; it is as if he made him lose money92This now refers to Mishnah 9. The formulation of the Mishnah is necessary since a breach of promise could be considered inflicting monetary loss. It is necessary to state that this loss does not qualify under the rules of equal cut..
“I am putting an oath on you,” etc. Does this not disagree with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who said, there is no money when there is flogging90It seems that this paragraph refers to Mishnah 7 (and in the Leiden ms. Halakhah 9 precedes Halakhot 7 and 8) declaring that a claim about damage on the Day of Atonement is a monetary claim which according to Terumot 7:1 Note 51 is true only for R. Joḥanan but not for R. Simeon ben Laqish. The latter holds that since a violation of the Day of Atonement in front of witnesses after due warning will expose the perpetrator to flogging, there can be no monetary claim even if there are no witnesses and the case of desecration is not one for the courts.. He explains it following Rebbi Meїr who said, he is flogged and he pays91The same explanation is given in Terumot 7:1 Note 7. Cf. Babli Ketubot 33b.. In any case he did not make him lose money. Is it not that since he wanted to give him but did not give to him; it is as if he made him lose money92This now refers to Mishnah 9. The formulation of the Mishnah is necessary since a breach of promise could be considered inflicting monetary loss. It is necessary to state that this loss does not qualify under the rules of equal cut..