Babylonian Talmud

Rodkinson 1918 — source 17, scan section 48

and R. Jehudah b. R. Jehoshua came from college, they said: The people of the west have ridiculed R. Simeon's last state- ment— viz. : Lest one say that the case of witnesses is more rigorous, etc.; saying: To what purpose did he need this after he had used an analogy of expression? But why should it be ridiculed? Perhaps he had put this point before, but not after, he established the said analogy?* Because it was known that the Scripture has made mention of a witness-oath in connection both with an uttered oath, and with the case of defiling the Temple and its holiness in order to indicate that concerning a witness-oath " Escaped his recollection " is not stated (whereas it is stated regarding the others) in order to make one liable to a sin-offering even for such an inteniioftal oath. MISHNA V. : If one says: I adjure you to bear me witness that so and so has promised to give me (as a present) 200 zuz, and did not, they are free, as they are guilty only in the case when money is required as a deposit. I adjure you that as soon as you become cognisant of testimony for me, you come and testify for me, they are free, since the oath preceded the act of testifying. When one says while standing in synagogue: I adjure you to bear me witness if you are cognizant thereof, so they are free unless he especially address his challenge to them. When one says to two: I adjure you so and so that, if you are cognisant of testimony in my favor, come and do so, to which they say: We swear that we know nothing for you, while in reality they do know, but only indirectly, or one of them is found to be a relative or an unfit, they are free. If one sends his servant to adjure them; or the defendant says to the wit- ♦ In the text is also repeated what Rabha b. Aithi said above to contradict R. Simeon, which is followed again by a discussion. But it being very complicated and apparently offering nothing new, we omit the few lines. TRACT SHEBUOTH (OATHS). 6i nesses: I adjure you to testify for him if you know any testi- mony, they are free, for they must hear it from the mouth of the plaintiff. GEMARA: The rabbis taught: I adjure you to bear me witness that so and so promised me as a present loo zuz and did not give them to me, they are free ; lest one say that they should be liable, the analogy of expression " sin " used both concerning a deposit and here, teaches that as in the former the deposit was given, so also in this case. " As soon as you become cognisant," etc. The rabbis taught; Lest one say that in such a case they should be liable, it reads, " If he is a witness, or hath seen or knoweth," which signifies that the act of testifying must precede the oath and not vice versa. " While standing in synagogue," etc. Said Samuel: Even if his witnesses were among them. Is this not self-evident? He means to say: Even if he was standing beside them, and lest one say that in such a case it is considered as though he talked directly to them, he comes to teach us that it is not so. There is a Boraitha in support of Samuel: If one saw a crowd standing, among whom he recognized his witnesses and said : I adjure you to come and testify for me, lest one say that they are liable, it reads, " And he is a witness," which signifies that the witnesses must be directly addressed, which he did not do. If, however, he said: I adjure you all who are standing here, to testify for me, they are liable, as here he addresses the witnesses directly. " When one says to two," etc. The rabbis taught: Lest one say that in such a case they should be liable, it read, "He shall bear his iniquity," which signifies that only then when they are fit to tell (on their own knowledge). *' If one sends his servant," etc. The rabbis taught: Lest one say that in such a case they should be liable, therefore the just-cited verse. But how is this to be understood? Said R. Elazar: The word "not" (Hebrew, Lo) is spelled herewith a redundant vahve and /(?(with a vahve) means him (dativus) which is to be interpreted thus: If he will not tell to him, to the party himself, he bears iniquity; but if he will not tell to a stranger, he is free. MISHNA VL : If one says: I adjure you, I impose upon you, I bind you (by oath), so they are guilty. If, however, he says: By heaven and earth, they are free; by any of the divine 62 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. names, or by some other divine attribute, so they are guilty. IMaspheme applies to them all, according to R. Mair, but not according to the sages. Whoever curses his father or mother by any of the above divine names, is guilty, so holds R. Mair, while the sages declare him free. Whoever curses himself or his neighbor by any of these transgresses a negative command. (If one says to the witness): Smite you God, or: May the Lord God smite you, so is this a biblical swearing. If he says (on your testifying): God smite you not, but bless you, may He bestow but good upon you (and they say: Amen), R. Mair finds them guilty, while the sages declare them free. GEMARA: " I adjure you," etc. How is this to be under- stood? Said R. Jehudah: Thus, I adjure you with the oath written in the Torah, I impose upon you with the commands of the Torah, I bind you with the bonds of the Torah. Said Abayi to him: According to you, how should be understood the Bo- raitha of R. Hyya: " For I chain you " they are liable! Do we find "chaining" in the Torah? Therefore, said Abayi, it means to say thus: I adjure you with an oath, I impose upon you with an oath, I bind you with an oath, I chain you with an oath. " Adonai,'" etc. Shall we assume that chanun and rachiini (mentioned in the Mishna among the names to swear by) are also divine names? If so, then there is a contradiction from the following: There are names that may be erased, and others that must not; the latter are: Eil, Eloechu, Eloini^ Elo'ecJiem, Ei'eh asher Eieh, Aleph Daleth, Yah, SJiadai and Zebaoth ; but Hago- dal, Hayibor, Hanora, Haddir, Hachazak, Hadmatz, Hadzaz, Chanun, RacJiuvi, ErccJi-apdini, Rabh-chcsscd* may be erased ; we see thus that chanun and radium are not divine names? Said Abayi: The Mishna means to say, I adjure you by him who is all favor, or: all merciful. Said Rabha to him: If so, let him be liable for adjuring one by heaven and earth, as you could explain it to mean : by him to whom heaven and earth belong? This is no comparison; if you say, " by him who is all favor," etc., so as there is none but the Almighty who is such, it cer- tainly means Him, but heaven and earth as separate existences, cannot be explained as belonging. The rabbis taught : If one writes Aleph lamed (the first letters * The divine names, from Eil \\\\ Zebaoth inclusive, are known, while those from