POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous daf Shevuos 33
1) MULTIPLE LIABILITY
(a) (Mishnah): Reuven said 'I impose an oath on you if you
will not testify for me that Ploni owes me a deposit, a
loan, stolen property and a lost object'; the witnesses
said 'We swear that we do not know testimony for you' -
they only bring one sacrifice;
2) LIABILITY FOR FINES
1. If they answered 'We swear that we do not know that
Ploni owes you a deposit, loan, stolen property or
lost object'; they are liable for each of these.
(b) 'I impose an oath on you if you will not testify for me
that Ploni owes me a deposit of wheat, barley and spelt';
the witnesses said 'We swear that we do not know
testimony for you' - they only bring one sacrifice;
1. If they answered 'We swear that we do not know that
Ploni owes you wheat, barley and spelt', they are
liable for each one.
(c) Witnesses are liable for Shevu'as ha'Edus if asked to
testify about any of the following: that Ploni owes me
for damage, half-damage, double payment (of a thief),
payment of four or five (for selling or slaughtering a
stolen animal), for raping or enticing my daughter, that
my son owes me for hitting me, that Ploni wounded me or
burned my stack on Yom Kipur.
(a) (Gemara) Question: Are witnesses liable for Shevu'as
ha'Edus denying testimony about a fine?
1. We do not ask according to R. Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon,
who holds that even after one admits to a fine, if
witnesses testify against him he must pay it (their
denial cost the claimant money, surely they are
(b) Answer #1 (Mishnah): That Ploni owes me for damage,
2. We ask according to Chachamim, who hold that
witnesses do not obligate a fine after an admission.
3. Question: According to which opinion (regarding
something which enables one to get money) do we ask?
i. Suggestion: If according to R. Elazar b'Rebbi
Shimon (something which enables one to get
money is like money), surely they are liable,
perhaps they would have testified before the
defendant (Shimon) admitted!
4. Answer: We ask according to Chachamim (something
which enables one to get money is not like money).
i. Do we say, since if Shimon would admit he is
exempt, this is not considered a claim of
ii. Or, since he has not admitted yet, it is like a
claim of money?
1. Half-damage (i.e. a Tam animal that gored) is a
fine, and they are liable!
(c) Rejection: According to the opinion that half-damage is
not a fine, this is no proof.
(d) Suggestion: But according to the opinion that it is a
fine, this is a proof!
(e) Rejection: No, we can say that it refers to half-damage
caused by (kicking) pebbles;
1. A tradition from Moshe from Sinai teaches that this
is not a fine.
(f) Answer #2 (Mishnah): ...Double payment (the fine a thief
must pay, and the witnesses are liable)!
(g) Rejection: Double payment includes principal (which is
not a fine, they are liable for denying knowledge of
(h) Answer #3 (Mishnah): ...Payment of four or five.
(i) Rejection: These payments include principal.
(j) Answer #4 (Mishnah): ...For raping or enticing my
daughter (for which there is a fine of 50 Shekalim).
(k) Rejection: A rapist or enticer also pays for
embarrassment and blemish (i.e. the decreased amount
people will pay to Mekadesh a non-virgin), which are not
1. Question: Why does the Mishnah teach all these cases
that are not fines?
(l) Answer #5 (Beraisa): Witnesses are liable for Shevu'as
ha'Edus about Motzi Shem Ra (Shimon married a Na'arah and
falsely claimed that she was not a virgin, he must pay
her father a fine of 100 Shekalim; if Shimon confessed on
his own, he is exempt.
2. Answer: There is a Chidush in one of the first
clauses, and in the last clause.
3. The case of half-damage teaches that pebbles is not
4. The case of burning a stack on Yom Kipur teaches
unlike R. Nechunyah ben Hakaneh.
i. (Beraisa - R. Nechunyah ben Hakaneh): Just as
one who damages by doing Melachah on Shabbos is
exempt from payment (because this is punishable
by death administered by Beis Din, one does not
forfeit his life and money at the same time),
the same applies to Yom Kipur (Melachah on Yom
Kipur is punishable by Kares, which includes
death at the hands of Heaven).
(m) Rejection: The Beraisa is R. Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon, who
says that witnesses obligate a fine even after an
admission; our question is according to Chachamim.
3) CLAIMING ON BEHALF OF ANOTHER
1. Question: But the end of the Beraisa says 'if Shimon
confessed on his own, he is exempt' (presumably,
even if witnesses testify later) - this is like
2. Answer: No, the entire Beraisa is R. Elazar;
i. It teaches that the only time he is exempt when
he admits is if witnesses never testify.
(a) (Mishnah): Witnesses are exempt for Shevu'as ha'Edus if
asked to testify about any of the following: that I am a
Kohen, or a Levi, or (regarding a Kohen) that my mother
was not divorced or a Chalutzah, or that Ploni is a
Kohen, or a Levi, or that his mother was not divorced or
a Chalutzah, or that Reuven raped or enticed his (Rashi -
Ploni's; some explain - own) daughter, or that my son
wounded me, or that Shimon wounded me or burned my stack
4) THERE MUST BE A MONETARY CLAIM
(b) (Gemara) Inference: They are only exempt because they
were asked to testify about Ploni's lineage - had they
been asked to testify that Shimon owes him money, they
would be liable!
(c) Question: But the continuation of our Mishnah (35A)
teaches that they are not liable unless the claimant
(d) Answer (Shmuel): They would be liable if the asked to
testify by someone with a Harsha'ah (power of attorney).
(e) Question: But Chachamim of Neharda'a taught that we do
not write a Harsha'ah on Metaltelim!
(f) Answer: That is only if the defendant denied owing; if
not, we may write it.
(a) (Beraisa): Question: What is the source that witnesses
are liable for Shevu'as ha'Edus only if there was a
(b) Answer #1 (R. Eliezer): The word 'O' is repeated in the
Parshah of Shevu'as ha'Edus, and also in Shevu'as
1. Just as the latter refers to a claim of money, also
(c) Answer #2 (R. Akiva): "Ki Yesham l'Achas *me*'Eleh" - for
*some* of these oaths he is liable, not for others;
2. Question: Why not learn from the Parshah of a
murderer, in which the word 'O' is repeated, yet it
does not refer to a claim of money?
3. Answer: It is preferable to learn Shevu'as ha'Edus
from another Parshah that involves an oath.
4. Question: Why not learn from the Parshah of Sotah,
in which the word 'O' is repeated and it involves an
oath, yet it does not refer to a claim (primarily)
5. Answer: It is preferable to learn Shevu'as ha'Edus
from another Parshah that involves an oath and does
not involve a Kohen.
1. He is liable for those with a claim of money, exempt
for others (later we will explain how he learns
(d) Answer #3 (R. Yosi ha'Galili): "V'hu Ed O Ra'ah *O* Yada"
- the Parshah discusses testimony possible through seeing
(without understanding) *or* knowing (without seeing);
(we only find these by monetary cases)
1. Seeing without understanding - for example, they saw
Reuven give Shimon money, they does not know why;
2. Knowing without seeing - for example, they heard
Shimon admit to Reuven