Talmud Yerushalmi
Yerushalmi Shevuot 4:7 ירושלמי שבועות ד׳:ז׳
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 שֶׁאָמַר אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי לִיתֶּן לִי מָאתַיִם זוּז וְלֹא נָתַן לִי הֲרֵי אֵילּוּ פְטוּרִים שֶׁאֵין חַיָיבִין אֶלָּא עַל שְׁבוּעַת מָמוֹן כַּפִּקָּדוֹן: מַשְׁבִּיעַ אֲנִי עֲלֵיכֶם כְּשֶׁתֵּדְעוּן לִי עֵדוּת שֶׁתָּבוֹאוּ וּתְעִידוּנִי הֲרֵי אֵילּוּ פְטוּרִים מִפְּנֵי שֶׁקָּדְמָה שְׁבוּעָה לָעֵדוּת: עָמַד בְּבֵית הַכְּנֶסֶת וְאָמַר מַשְׁבִּיעַ אֲנִי עֲלֵיכֶם שֶׁאִם אַתֶּם יוֹדְעִים לִי עֵדוּת שֶׁתָּבוֹאוּ וּתְעִידוּנִי הֲרֵי אֵילּוּ פְטוּרִין:
MISHNAH: “I am putting an oath on you that you should come and testify for me that Mr. X promised to give me 200 zuz88The Babylonian half-sheqel, identified with the Roman denar. but did not give them to me.” These are not liable87There 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. since one is liable only for an (oath about)89This is a scribal error. With all other Mishnah sources on has to read תְּבִיעַת “claim of.” money similar to a deposit.
“I am putting an oath on you, that you shall come and testify for me when you know testimony for me.” These are not liable93If they disobey the imprecation. Lev. 5:1 is quite explicit that it applies only to persons who already know the testimony. since the oath preceded the testimony94This sentence is elliptic. The oath preceded the possibility of testimony..
If he stood in the synagogue and said, “I am putting an oath on you, that you shall come and testify for me if you know testimony for me.” These are not liable95Since the imprecation is not directed at any specific persons..
MISHNAH: “I am putting an oath on you that you should come and testify for me that Mr. X promised to give me 200 zuz88The Babylonian half-sheqel, identified with the Roman denar. but did not give them to me.” These are not liable87There 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. since one is liable only for an (oath about)89This is a scribal error. With all other Mishnah sources on has to read תְּבִיעַת “claim of.” money similar to a deposit.
“I am putting an oath on you, that you shall come and testify for me when you know testimony for me.” These are not liable93If they disobey the imprecation. Lev. 5:1 is quite explicit that it applies only to persons who already know the testimony. since the oath preceded the testimony94This sentence is elliptic. The oath preceded the possibility of testimony..
If he stood in the synagogue and said, “I am putting an oath on you, that you shall come and testify for me if you know testimony for me.” These are not liable95Since the imprecation is not directed at any specific persons..
הלכה: מַשְׁבִּיעַ אֲנִי עֲלֵיכֶם כול׳. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר זַבְדִּי רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. אָמַר לִיתֵּן מַתָּנָה לַחֲבֵירוֹ וּבִיקֵּשׁ לַחֲזוֹר בּוֹ חוֹזֵר. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר זַבְדִּי בְּעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ. וְאָהֵן הִין לֹא בְצֶדֶק הוּא. וְהִין צֶדֶק אָמַר. בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁאָמַר הִין שֶׁלְּצֶדֶק הֲוָה.
HALAKHAH: “I am putting an oath on you,” etc. 96Ševi`it 10:9 Notes 133–134; Giṭtin 6:1 Note 39, Bava meṣi`a 4:2 Note 49; Babli Bava meṣi`a49a, Bekhorot 13b; Sifra Qedošim Pereq 8(7). Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody wanted to change his mind after he had promised a gift to another person, he may change his mind. Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi asked before Rebbi Abbahu: Did He not say “a true yes”97Lev. 19:36. The pun identifies the measure הִין with the Aramaic equivalent הֵן of the Hebrew כֵּן “yes”. It shows that -ֵ was pronounced like -ִי (Itacistic η = ῖ). The verse is read as exhortation to be honest in business dealings.? At the moment when he said it, it was a true yes.
HALAKHAH: “I am putting an oath on you,” etc. 96Ševi`it 10:9 Notes 133–134; Giṭtin 6:1 Note 39, Bava meṣi`a 4:2 Note 49; Babli Bava meṣi`a49a, Bekhorot 13b; Sifra Qedošim Pereq 8(7). Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody wanted to change his mind after he had promised a gift to another person, he may change his mind. Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi asked before Rebbi Abbahu: Did He not say “a true yes”97Lev. 19:36. The pun identifies the measure הִין with the Aramaic equivalent הֵן of the Hebrew כֵּן “yes”. It shows that -ֵ was pronounced like -ִי (Itacistic η = ῖ). The verse is read as exhortation to be honest in business dealings.? At the moment when he said it, it was a true yes.
לָמָּה. מִשּׁוּם שֶׁאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ בָּהֶן אוֹ מִשּׁוּם שֶׁאֵין מִתְכַּוֵּין לָהֶן. מַה נְפַק מִבֵּינֵיהוֹן. מִשְׁכֵּן שְׁנַיִם שְׁנַיִם. אִין תֵּימַר מִשּׁוּם שֶׁאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ בָּהֶן. יוֹדֵעַ בָּהֶן. הֲוֵי לֵית טַעֲמָא דְלָא מִשּׁוּם שֶׁאֵין מִתְכַּוֵּין לָהֶן.
Why98This refers to Mishnah 11, that a wholesale imprecation is invalid.? Because he does not know them, or because he does not intend to ask them99Is it because the person demanding testimony does not know the identity of the person whom he is asking to testify or does he not know whom to ask to testify because he does not know who would be able to testify.? What is the difference between them? If he obligated them in pairs of two. If you would say because he does not know them, he knows them. Therefore the reason only can be that he does not intend to ask them100In the Sephardic tradition of the Mishnah, independent and in the Babli, including Maimonides’s autograph, this statement is part of the Mishnah. In the Ashkenazic tradition of the Babli, as exemplified by the Munich ms., the Mishnah is identical with the version given in the Yerushalmi. In Sifra Ḥova (Wayyiqra 2) Parashah 8(6) the language is that of the Sephardic Mishnah, based on the expression and he is a witness of Lev. 5:1. The Babli (35a) infers from this verse that the demand for testimony must be personal; it is not enough that the claimant know the identity of the witness, the request must be delivered individually. If the claimant sees a group of people which includes the two whom he wants as his witnesses, he may not address the group collectively; he must summon them personally..
Why98This refers to Mishnah 11, that a wholesale imprecation is invalid.? Because he does not know them, or because he does not intend to ask them99Is it because the person demanding testimony does not know the identity of the person whom he is asking to testify or does he not know whom to ask to testify because he does not know who would be able to testify.? What is the difference between them? If he obligated them in pairs of two. If you would say because he does not know them, he knows them. Therefore the reason only can be that he does not intend to ask them100In the Sephardic tradition of the Mishnah, independent and in the Babli, including Maimonides’s autograph, this statement is part of the Mishnah. In the Ashkenazic tradition of the Babli, as exemplified by the Munich ms., the Mishnah is identical with the version given in the Yerushalmi. In Sifra Ḥova (Wayyiqra 2) Parashah 8(6) the language is that of the Sephardic Mishnah, based on the expression and he is a witness of Lev. 5:1. The Babli (35a) infers from this verse that the demand for testimony must be personal; it is not enough that the claimant know the identity of the witness, the request must be delivered individually. If the claimant sees a group of people which includes the two whom he wants as his witnesses, he may not address the group collectively; he must summon them personally..