skip to main |
skip to sidebar
The Torah assumes that no person would be so impudent as to deny a loan outright. After all, the lender did him a favor by loaning money interest-free (and other types of loans are anyway forbidden). When the borrower partially admits a loan, but partially denies it, this is just because he does not have all the money and plans to pay the balance later on. This is not right, however, and the Torah imposes an oath on him. But we cannot assume this in the case of complete denial.
Later, however, this situation changed, and the Sages established an “Oath of Forgetfulness” even for cases of complete denial. However, this Rabbinical oath is different in that it can be switched: if the defendant does not want to take an oath, the plaintiff can take one and collect the money.
Art: Forgotten Speech by Leopold Loeffler
Rav says that it is the denied amount. For example, the total amount of the loan in dispute may be 10, and the defendant may agree that he owes 8, but deny the remaining 2. In contrast, Shmuel says that the claim itself must be for 2 maot. Then, if the defendant denies 1 perutah or admits one perutah, he is liable for an oath.
Rava said: "The precise reading of the ruling indicates Rav's opinion, but the words of the Torah sound like the opinion of Shmuel." The precise reading of the ruling seems to agree with Rav, because it says that the minimum amount of "the claim" must be 2 maot, but never mentions how much the denied amount should be, which means that by "claim" the ruling means "the denial". The Torah, however, sounds closer to the opinion of Shmuel, when it says "this is it!" indicating that the amount of claim itself is essential when it is 2 coins.
Art: The Public Ministry of Finance by G. Alluisetti
Since the punishment for violating a Biblical oath is very severe, Rashi writes that Jewish courts in his time refrained from asking the defendant to swear and instead placed a curse on any defendant who would lie.
If the defendant says, “I will not swear,” he is immediately excused from court, owes money, and does not come back to change his opinion. However, if he says, “I shall swear,” those standing there recite the phrase “Turn away from the tents of these wicked men.” Even the plaintiff is considered guilty for causing an oath, since he should not have dealt with an untrustworthy person.
The judges tell him, “You should know that the whole world trembled at the words 'Do not take the name of Hashem your God in vain'” And why is this? Because about a false oath it says, “God will not absolve.”
Art: H. de la Charlerie - King Louis XVI Swearing on the Book of the Constitution
Courts have limited authority to impose oaths and can do so in only three specific cases: partial admission, the oath of custodians, and the single-witness oath.
The first case, partial admission, has its own additional limitations. This oath can be imposed only if the claim is for at least two silver maot (a volume of 32 grains of barley, about $10) and the admission is at least a prutah coin (half a silver barleycorn, under 25 cents).
In addition, partial admission must be for the same kind. For example, if the plaintiff says, "You have two silver coins in my possession," and the defendant responds, "You have only one prutah coin in my possession," the defendant is free from an oath because the claim was for silver, and the admission was for copper.
Art: The Doubtful Coin by Thomas Waterman Wood
Usually, one gets lashes for willful transgressions and brings a sacrifice for mistakes. The oath of deposit is special, however, since one brings a sacrifice even for knowing violation of it. So then he is not lashed. Or maybe he is not lashed when there is no warning, but if there is a warning, he is lashed? It could also be both.
They answered him based on a well-known ruling that the oath of deposit is more stringent than the oath of testimony, for one gets lashes for it. Therefore, they said, he gets lashes but does not bring a sacrifice.
When they related this to Rabbah, he said, "Incorrect question!" If the witnesses saw him accept the deposit, the claimant can have the deposit back based on their testimony, and his denial carries no weight; therefore, it is not a true oath of deposit anyway! But Rabbah was later proven incorrect.
Art: The Spanking by Paul Charles Chocarne-Moreau
If a person in possession of someone else's money – either a deposit, a loan, a stolen article, or the like – swears that he does not have it, he has taken what is known as an oath of deposit. If he swore falsely and subsequently confesses his sin, he must repay the principal plus an additional fifth and bring a "guilt offering" sacrifice in the Temple.
Although this oath applies to all types of debts, not just deposits, it is nevertheless called the "oath of the deposit" because a deposit is the first example mentioned in the Torah.
The oath of deposit applies to both men and women, to non-relatives and relatives, to those who are qualified to serve as witnesses, and to those who are disqualified, in court and out of court.
In truth, there is no reason to think these rules would not apply, but they are only stated to contrast with the oath of witnesses discussed previously.
Art: Stolen Pleasures by George Baxter
There are five cases when there is no liability for the false oath of testimony: where one testifies to a promise, not actual giving of money; where he adjures them to testify when they will know the testimony in the future; where he addressed himself to a whole group of people, without specifying the witnesses; where their testimony would be hearsay or otherwise invalid; where he sent his slave to adjure the witnesses, or if it was the defendant, not the claimant, who adjured them.
If one said, "I adjure you," "I command you," I bind you" (to testify) – the witnesses are liable.
If they swore by heaven and earth, then they are not liable. However, if they swore by "Lord," by the Tetragrammaton, by the "Lord of Hosts," "Compassionate," "Merciful," "Slow to Anger," "Abundantly Kind," or by any of the subordinate Names of God, they are liable.
Art: A Group Of Artists by Jules Alexandre Grun
