skip to main |
skip to sidebar
In all the following cases one is not liable for a false oath of testimony.
A claimant said to two witnesses, “I adjure you to come and testify that I am a Kohen” - because this is not a monetary claim. Or he said “that I am a Levi,” “that so-and-so is a Kohen,” or “that so-and-so is a Levi.”
If he said, “That so-and-so raped another man's daughter” or “seduced another man's daughter.” Although the rapist must pay damages and the fifty-shekel fine, and the claim is monetary, but in order to be liable, the witnesses need to be adjured by the claimant himself, to whom the rapist is to pay, not by another person.
“That he ignited my stack of grain on the Sabbath,” - since desecration of the Sabbath is punishable by death, this makes one free from monetary liability even when he is not executed.
Art: Vincent Van Gogh - Wheat Stacks With Reaper
If he adjured them five times, this time in court, and they denied knowing testimony in court, they are liable for only one oath. Rabbi Shimon explained, “Why? Because, after denying knowledge of the testimony in court, they cannot retract and confess that they do know the testimony.” Their denial in court of knowing testimony is itself treated as testimony, and the rule is that once witnesses give testimony in court they can never retract of alter that testimony. Therefore, for the last four oaths they are no longer eligible to give testimony.
Art: William Morris Hunt - Justice Lemuel Shaw
* A judge should not defend his opinion about which he has doubts, merely to avoid embarrassment;
* He should not have an ignorant student assist him in judgment;
* He should not join another judge whom he knows to be a thief;
* If he has discerned that the witnesses are lying, he should not continue to judge, internally putting the blame on the witnesses;
* A student assisting a judge who sees an argument in favor of a poor man should not be silent about it;
* If a student sees his teacher making a mistake, he should not wait till the teacher concludes the judgment, for the student to demolish it and get honor;
* If a teacher tells his student “You know me, I won't lie. Someone owes me a maneh ($5,000), but I have only one witness – please be the second one” - the student should not be a witness;
* Six more...
Art: Andre Collin - Poor People
The oath of testimony concerns witnesses who knew testimony that a litigant needs in order to win a monetary case. If the litigant asks them to testify, and they falsely swear that they do not know the testimony, they are liable to bring a “variable” offering when they admit that they lied. If the litigant has other means to win the case, or he has other witnesses, the liability for false oath does not apply.
In addition to making a personal oath, one can answer “Amen” to someone saying “I adjure you,” and this also becomes an oath, as if he said it himself. In the case of the oath of testimony, if one repeats in court that he does not know the testimony, after being adjured, this also becomes an oath.
Art: Louis Charles Auguste Couder - The Court Oath
What is called an oath given in vain? It is if one swore to contradict something which is well known to people. For example, if he said about a stone column that it is made of gold, or about a man that he is a woman, or about a woman that she is a man.
Another example of a vain oath is when he swore about something that is impossible for him to do, or which is prohibited by the Torah, and in this sense impossible. Thus, if he knew a testimony and swore not to say it, it is a vain oath, since he is obligated by the Torah to testify if he knows a favorable testimony about someone. Similarly, it is a vain oath not to put on tefillin.
For vain oaths one is liable to lashes if the violation is willful, and is completely exempt if he did it by mistake.
Art: Edward Pritchett - A View Of St Mark's Column, And The Doge's Palace, Venice
Aifa studied oaths in the academy of Rabbah. His brother Avimi met him and asked a question, “If one takes an oath that he has not eaten today, and then repeats it, what is the law?” Aifa said, “He transgressed once.” “Wrong!” - said Avimi - “These are two false oaths.”
Avimi asked another question, “An oath that I will not eat nine figs, an oath that I will not eat ten!” Aifa answered, “Liable for each oath.” “Wrong!” - said Avimi - “If he cannot eat nine figs, then he cannot eat ten.”
Avimi asked a third question, “'An oath that I will not eat ten figs, an oath that I will not eat nine,' - and then he ate ten, what is the law?” Aifa answered, “He transgressed once, since the second oath is included in the first.” “Wrong!” - said Avimi - “The first oath prohibits ten figs, but allows nine, so the second oath is stricter than the first!” - and if he eats ten figs, he transgresses two oaths.
Art: Edmond Lebel - Sellers of figs and nuts
If one swears to violate a mitzvah but does not violate it – he is not liable for an oath of utterance and a sacrifice. In the same way, if he swears to fulfill a mitzvah and does not do it, he is exempt. Oaths only apply to something that he has the freedom to do or not to do and not to mitzvot, which one is obligated to do from the time of Mount Sinai. However, in the first case, he is liable to lashes for making a vain oath.
Rabbi Yehudah ben Beteira wants to prove that one who swears to do a mitzvah and does not do it is liable, as follows. If in the case of an oath to do an optional act, one is liable for not doing it, then in the case of a mitzvah, which he is already obligated to do, how much more so is he liable if he does not do it!
But the Sages say, oaths are only created if one has the freedom to promise to do or not to do, and in the case of mitzvot, one does not have this freedom.
Art: Jacques Louis David - Deputies swearing oaths
Rabbi Akiva said to him, “If so, if you want to interpret the verse literally, then you only have oaths dealing with good and bad. What about neutral oaths, such as to throw a rock into the sea?” Rabbi Ishmael answered, “I get it from the extra inclusion of 'for anything that a person utters in an oath'”. Said Rabbi Akiva, “This inclusion also includes oaths concerning the past!”
Rabbi Akiva answered well! What does Rabbi Ishmael have to say? The teacher of Rabbi Ishmael was Rabbi Nechunia ben Hakaneh, the chief kabbalist of the time, and the teacher of Rabbi Akiva was Nachum Ish Gamzu, known for saying “This also is for the good,” and they differed on which of the 13 rules of Torah interpretation is prevalent – the generalization/specification or the amplification/limitation.
Art: Frederick Childe Hassam - Sea and Rocks, Appledore, Isles of Shoals
An oath takes effect regarding both matters relevant to oneself and relevant to another, regarding both matters of substance and those lacking substance.
For example, if one swears “I will give something to so-and-so” or “I will not give it to him,” or “I swear that I gave it to him” or “I swear that I did not give it to him,” - this is an oath about others.
If he said, “I swear that I will sleep” or “that I will not sleep,” “I slept” or “I did not sleep” - these are oaths concerning intangible matters.
If one said, “I swear that I will throw a pebble into the sea” or “I will not throw the pebble,” “I threw the pebble” or “I did not throw” - these are oaths concerning non-beneficial acts.
Art: Jan Vermeer Van Delft - A Woman Asleep at Table
However, what about the following ruling: for an act of eating one can be liable to five offerings: an impure person who ate forbidden fat usually brought on the altar, beyond the time allowed for the sacrifice, from consecrated animal, and on Yom Kippur. According to the principle of inclusive prohibition, why not add another one – an oath against eating fat? - We list only those prohibitions that existed by themselves, not the ones he creates.
Art: Jean-Baptiste-Simeon Chardin - Still Life with a Rib of Beef
If one swore, “An oath that I will not eat!” - and then he ate wheat bread, barley bread and spelt bread – he is liable for only one offering. But if he swore, “An oath that I will not eat wheat bread, barley bread and spelt bread!” - and then he ate all three – he is liable for each one.
But why? Maybe all he meant was “no breads,” and this is all one oath? - If so, he should have said, “I will not eat wheat, barley and spelt.”
But maybe he meant to prohibit himself from chewing those grains? - If so, he should have said, “I will not eat bread of wheat, barley and spelt.” Instead, he included the word “bread” every time, thus separating his oath into three separate oaths.
Art: Johannes Vermeer - The Milkmaid
Asked Rava, “If one took an oath not to eat earth, how much must he eat to be liable?” Is it like all eating, a volume of an olive, or, since earth is inedible, he means even a minute amount? - Remains unresolved.
If one swore, “An oath that I will not eat,” and then he ate and drank, he is liable to only one offering. But if one swore, “An oath that I will not eat and that I will not drink,” and then he ate and drank, he is liable to two offerings.
If one swore, “An oath that I will not eat,” and then he ate prohibited foods, such as animals or foul that were not slaughtered correctly, unkosher fish, seals, frogs, flies, bees, mosquitoes – he is liable. Rabbi Shimon exempts him, because he swore to something to which he is already obligated, and his new oath did not take effect.
Art: Giacomo Ceruti - Sea Food
They challenged both based on the following ruling. If one says “It is hereby incumbent on me that I not eat meat nor drink wine, as on the day on which my father died (source for fasting on a yahrtzeit), or as on the day when Gedaliyah ben Achikam was killed (fast of the 3rd of Tishrei), or as on the day on which I viewed Jerusalem in its destruction” - he is indeed prohibited; and Shmuel commented on this, “This is only true if he already vowed from that day on.”
This seems perfect according to Abaye: one attaches a vow to a vow, and in the same way an oath to an oath. However, it does not agree with Rava, who said that one cannot attach one oath to another oath! Rava will tell you that this ruling discusses a vow attached to a prohibited object (meat and wine), not an attachment to a vow, which, although mentioned, would be ineffective.
Art: Luis Meléndez - Still Life with Figs and Bread
Is it because he follows the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who obligates one for any prohibited food for even a minute amount? If so, Rabbi Akiva should disagree in general and say to the Sages, “I obligate for any food violation, regardless of amount!” No, this idea is incorrect. Rabbi Akiva could simply be answering the Sages according to their words: “I say, one is liable for any amount of forbidden food. You, the Sages, who don't hold so, should at least agree with me in the instance of an oath, where he violates his oath, not just the food prohibition.”
It could also be that in general Rabbi Akiva does not follow the opinion of Rabbi Shimon and obligates for eating forbidden foods only if a specific amount is consumed. Here, however, Rabbi Akiva says that the one who takes an oath “I will not eat” means it in the common sense of eating, and small amounts are included.
The second explanation is the preferred one.
Art: Georges de La Tour - Peasant Couple Eating
If one says, “An oath that I will eat” (a certain food object), or “An oath that I will not eat” - these are the two oaths explicit in the Torah. “An oath that I ate,” or “An oath that I did not eat” - these are the two types of oath derived by exegesis.
If one swore, “An oath that I will not eat,” and then, forgetting his oath, ate even a minute amount, he is liable – these are the words of Rabbi Akiva. The Sages said to Rabbi Akiva, “Where do we find regarding one who eats a minute amount of forbidden food that he is liable?” There has to be a minimum amount! Rabbi Akiva replied to them, “And where do we find that one speaks and brings an offering because of mere words?”
Art: Bartolome Esteban Murillo - Boys Eating Fruit
Therefore, as Abaye said, he is liable to two offerings. But, as Rava asked, how could it be two offerings? If he is a Sage, and he knows the rules, then he may liable to bring an offering for the entry, but as far as exit – he is doing it deliberately, and offerings are brought only for mistakes! And if he is an ignoramus, this is all one big mistake, and he brings one offering! Rava himself answered his question, explaining that we are dealing with an incomplete Sage, who does not know the prohibition to withdraw immediately, which makes it for him an unintentional mistake.
What should he do? He should "thrust his ten fingernails in the ground, like Joseph" (remain still until his organ becomes limp) and he is fortunate for having conquered his evil inclination.
Art: Jean-Honore Fragonard - Le Verrou (The Bolt)
If one became ritually impure while in the Temple and before leaving bowed down, or tarried long enough to bow down, he is liable to the “variable” offering.
There are three kinds of bowing down are mentioned in the Scripture. “Kidah” means bringing one's face down to the ground from a standing position, with no more than his thumbs to support him in front. Batsheva was able to do it, and the High Priest would attempt it on Yom Kippur in order to keep awake. “Keriah” is kneeling down, and “Hishtachavaah” means complete prostration on the ground, with arms and legs extended.
Rava asked, “If one, upon being contaminated, suspended himself in the air of the Courtyard, not touching the floor, is he liable for an offering?” Does “tarrying long enough to bow down” imply being able to actually bow down, or does it not? - No answer is given to that question.
Art: Sir David Wilkie - Woman with a Baby Kneeling
Those who say that a few attributes are sufficient say so because in their view the initial holiness of Jerusalem lapsed with the Babylonian exile. Since Ezra did not have all the attributes, but was still able to sanctify Jerusalem and the Temple, we see that not all attributes are needed.
Those who say that all are required say so because in their view the initial holiness of Jerusalem continued through the Babylonian exile. If so, then why did Ezra need any sanctification at all? - Just for remembrance of the ritual.
If one became impure while in the Temple and forgot about it, he is obligated to bring a “variable” offering. This is not mentioned directly in the Torah. However, since there are two separate prohibitions to enter the Tabernacle and the Temple while being impure, and the words Tabernacle and Temple are used interchangeably, the extra prohibition is applied to one who becomes impure while in the Courtyard.
Art: Gustave Bauernfeind - David Street in Jerusalem
One is liable for entering the Temple while impure, whether he enters the original Courtyard or the area that was added later – and here is the procedure for adding to the Courtyard and to the City of Jerusalem.
With the consent of the king, a prophet, Urim VeTumim, and the Sanhedrin of seventy one, they would prepare a Thanksgiving offering and a song. The High Court marches around the perimeter of the area being added, and the two loaves of the Thanksgiving offering in front of them – carried by the kohanim – and all Israel behind them. The Thanksgiving loaves were used because they can only be eaten inside of Jerusalem, and they were very large, made with a few hundred cups of flour. They sang “The Song of Thanksgiving, call out to God everyone on earth.”, accompanied by harps, lyres, and cymbals.
Art: Jan De Bray - David Playing the Harp
Similarly, if he forgot about his impurity and visited the Temple, this is the second of the “two” cases mentioned in the Torah. If he remembered about the impurity but forgot about the Temple, this is the additional derived case.
Asked Rav Pappa, what if he forgot about the laws of impurity? - But what exactly did he forget? If he forgot if it is a lizard or a frog that makes him impure – let him go and learn it with the children in school! Rather, what if he forgot the amount of lizard's meat that makes him impure on contact, is it like a lentil or more, what is the law? - This question remains unresolved.
Art: Luisa Vitelli - Parrot, Blue Tit, Two Lizards, and Vases
Rabbi Yehudah the Prince has an exceptional opinion that Yom Kippur atones even for the person who does not repent (with three exceptions: denying the existence of Creator, speaking insolently of the Torah, and refusing to be circumcised). But according to Rabbi Yehudah, how is it at all possible to deserve being cut off – which the Torah promises for eating and working on Yom Kippur - if the last moment of it affects atonement? - It would apply to one who eats, chokes, and immediately dies in the middle of Yom Kippur, or alternatively to one who keeps eating at the end of Yom Kippur.
Art: George Goodwin Kilburne - To Crown the Feast
Earlier Rabbi Yochanan had stated that daily offerings that are not needed by the community can be redeemed. However, Rabbi Shimon disagrees with this. In looking for the opponents of Rabbi Shimon, whose view Rabbi Yochanan follows, we fail to find an explicit recorded ruling and are forced to conclude that Rabbi Yochanan had a tradition from his teachers to this effect.
But according to Rabbi Shimon, what do we do with the leftover lambs? - We offer them as treats on the Altar. This agrees with Rabbi Shimon's view that offerings of a similar nature (in this case, they are burnt-offerings, totally consumed on the Altar) are interchangeable.
Art: James Ward - Heath Ewe and Lamb
Nevertheless, Ulla said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan that daily offerings that are not needed by the community can be redeemed. There were four such lambs at the end of each Temple's fiscal year, when new half-shekels began to be used.
Here is the procedure. The Temple treasurer borrows some funds, which are thus completely unconsecrated. He redeems the lambs, transferring their holiness to the money. This money is then added to the old half-shekels and is used for plating the Holy of Holies. The treasurer then repurchases the lambs with new half-shekels. Where does their holiness go? The court makes it a condition when consecrating the lambs in the first place that if they are not needed, they can be redeemed.
Art: Pieter Claesz - Still Life with Wine Glass and Silver Bowl
According to Rabbi Yehudah, both the goats brought on Festivals and the goats brought on the New Moon atone for such violations of ritual purity laws of which one never becomes aware.
Rabbi Shimon disagrees about the goats of New Moon and says that these atone specifically for cases when one, while being pure, inadvertently eats sacrifices that are impure.
Rabbi Meir says that the atonement of all he-goats is the same: they atone for inadvertent purity violations of the Temple and of its offerings.
Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda has a different version of what Rabbi Shimon said: that the goats atone for progressively wider range of infringements, in order from New Moon to Festivals to Yom Kippur. Said the Sages to him, “If they are so similar, can a goat designated for the New Moon be brought on Yom Kippur ?” He said, “Yes. Even though they are not the same, they have that in common that they deal with purity of the Temple and its offerings.”
Paul Gauguin - Landscape with Two Goats
The goat sacrifice brought on New Moon atones for the cases of ritual impurity which never become known to the person who was impure. That is why this sacrifice is called “a sacrifice for God” - for God alone knows of this impurity - these are the words of Rabbi Yehudah.
Additionally, as Resh Lakish explained, God said, “This he-goat shall be an atonement for something that I did.” When God created the Sun and the Moon, they were initially of the same size. The Moon complained that it is not appropriate for two rulers to rule at once, and God said, "You are right, go and make yourself smaller." The Moon then reasoned that it was unjust that it should suffer just because it raised a valid point. In order to placate the Moon, God promised that the Jewish people will be bringing a sacrifice for God's sin, as it were, on every New Moon.
Art: Caspar David Friedrich - Man and Woman Contemplating the Moon
There are seven sins that lead to Tsara'at: talking badly about others, bloodshed, vain oath, forbidden unions, haughtiness, robbery, and stinginess.
The goat brought on Yom Kippur suspends one's punishment for going to the Temple while impure. But if it does not erase it completely, how does the suspension help? Rav Zeira said, “By suspension, we mean that if the sinner dies before becoming aware of his transgression, he dies without this sin on his record.”
Said Rava to Rav Zeira, “The sinner does not need the goat sacrifice for this, for if he dies, then death itself purges him of his sin!” Rather, Rava said, “The purpose of suspension is to shield him from the suffering he deserves on account of his sin, until he becomes aware of it and gains complete atonement thorough his offering.”
Art: Carl von Marr - The Gossips
If one knew that he was ritually impure, forgot about it and then visited the Temple or ate sacrifices, once he remembers his impurity – he is obligated to bring a “variable” sacrifice, the nature of which depends on his means.
If, however, he never recalls that he was impure, the goat that is brought as a sacrifice on Yom Kippur, and the day of Yom Kippur itself, suspends his punishment. When he finally does find out about his past impurity, he then brings a “variable sacrifice.”
But maybe the goat of Yom Kippur atones even for idol worship, prohibited relations, and bloodshed, because these are also characterized as “impure”? - No! Yom Kippur atones only “from impurities of the Children of Israel,” but not all impurities – these are the words of Rabbi Yehudah. Rabbi Shimon derives the same answer from the context of Yom Kippur – it atones only for matters related to the Temple service.
Art: Theodore Robinson - Girl with a goat
“White spot” is white as snow; “raised white spot” is darker and is like white wool. The shade auxiliary to snow-white is that of lime of the Temple; the shade auxiliary to white wool is the color of egg membrane. The minimal size of a white spot that is considered significant is that of a lentil bean. Two primary shades combine with each for the size of the bean; auxiliary shades combine with their primary ones. This is analogous to two kings and their governors.
Yehoshuah the son of Rabbi Akiva asked, “Why not just teach that any shade that is whiter than the egg membrane is significant?” Rabbi Akiva answered him, “To test the Kohanim, who must be knowledgeable in the shades of Tsara'at, in order to judge.”
Art: Rembrandt Van Rijn - The King Uzziah Stricken with Leprosy
The Sages added two more prohibitions, where the action is done jointly. For example, if the owner of the house takes the object, lifts it up, and the poor person accepts it while outside. Neither of them has completely violated Shabbat.
There are also four cases of bringing an object in. This makes a total of eight, and is not parallel to the “two that are four!” To answer this, we count only those cases where one is liable for a Torah violation, and equate taking out to bringing in, because they are both in essence changing the domain - and you will get exactly two that are four.
Art: John Singer Sargent - Venetian Water Carriers
Why is this needed? When Rabbi Yehudah, the compiler of all Mishnaic rulings, formulates an anonymous ruling, he is implying that this is the majority opinion and thus the final law. Without our (somewhat forced) explanation, we would have two major authorities disagreeing with the final law.
However, there is still a problem with our answer. To receive lashes, the person must be warned. If he is warned, how can we talk about him being unaware that he eats sacrifices or that he enters the Temple ?
We are forced to retract our explanation about lashes. Rather, we now answer that Rabbi Yehudah the Prince compiles conflicting opinions of different Sages in one ruling. He does so because he wants to assemble together all cases of “Two that are four.”
Art: Thomas Hovenden - The Discussion
