Sifra Chovah Chapter 12

¹1) R. Yossi Haglili says: What is the intent of "and he was a witness or saw or knew, if he does not tell, then he shall bear his sin"? It applies only to testimony that can consist in seeing without knowing or in knowing without seeing, and this obtains only with a monetary claim. ("seeing without knowing": as when one says to another: "I counted out a maneh to you in the presence of so and so, who witnessed this, but I did not apprise them whether it were a gift or a loan or a pledge," and the other says: "Let them come and testify that you counted it out to me in their presence and I will pay you." ("knowing without seeing": as when one says to another: "You admitted owing me a maneh in the presence of so and so," and the other says: "Let them come and testify to this, and I will pay you." R. Akiva says (on Vayikra 5:5: "and he be guilty for one of these"): There are among these that for which he is liable (for withholding testimony) and that for which he is exempt. How so? If money is claimed, he is liable; if anything else, he is exempt. ²2) R. Shimon says: He is liable here (for an offering in the instance of violating the oath to the witnesses) and he is liable in the instance of a pledge (Vayikra 5 verse 21). Just as the instance of a pledge relates only to a monetary claim, here, too, only a monetary claim is intended. ³3) What is more, this follows a fortiori, viz.: If in the instance of a pledge, where women are equated with men, kin with non-kin, those unfit (for testimony) with those fit (i.e., it makes no difference whether the claimee were a woman, or kin of the claimant or unfit for testimony), and there is liability for each (oath, i.e., if he were besworn and he denied five times, he is liable for violation of each oath), and (liability for denial) obtains both (with denial) before beth-din and not before beth-din — ("If in the instance of a pledge") liability obtains only with money claims, here (in the instance of withholding testimony), where women are not equated with men, kin with non-kin, fit with unfit (viz. Vayikra 8:5), and there is liability for only one denial and only before beth-din (viz. Vayikra 8:6), how much more so does liability obtain only with money claims! — No, (this a fortiori argument can be refuted, viz.:) This (limitation to monetary claims) applies only in the instance of a pledge, where the besworn (by others, — where there is no liability —) is not equated with his swearing (on his own, where there is liability) and where deliberate (violation of the oath) is not equated with inadvertent (violation), whereas here (in the instance of withholding testimony), where the besworn is equated with his (own) swearing and deliberate (violation) with inadvertent, (I would say that) it (this instance) obtains both with monetary and with non-monetary claims. It is, therefore, (to negate this) written here (Vayikra 5:1): "if a soul sinned," and there (in respect to a pledge, Vayikra 5:21): "if a soul sinned" — Just as the latter obtains only with a monetary claim, so the former. ⁴4) (If one says:) "I beswear you if you do not come and bear witness for me that this and this man said he would give me two hundred zuz and he did not give it to me," this constitutes a money claim. I might think, then, that they would be liable (for the witnesses' oath); it is therefore, (to negate this) written (in both instances): "if a soul sinned" - "if a soul sinned," for (purposes of) identity — Just as in the instance of "if a soul sinned" there (a pledge), he claims money and he has the right (to do so), the instance of "if a soul sinned" here (the witnesses' oath) too, must be one in which he claims money and has the right (to do so — to exclude an instance such as the above, where he (the claimant) has no such right by law, the claimee having the right to retract (his agreement to give him the money). ⁵5) If he beswore them five times outside of beth-din (and they denied having witnessed [for each oath]) and they came before beth-din and admitted (having witnessed), I might think that they were liable; it is, therefore, written: "and he was a witness or saw or knew — if he does not tell, then he shall bear his sin" — This applies only in an instance where if he told, the other (the claimee) would be liable to pay. Which instance is that? That of (telling in) beth-din. ⁶6) From here they adduced: If he beswore them outside (of beth-din) and they denied, and they came to beth-din and admitted, they are not liable (for violation of the oath). (If he beswore them) outside and they admitted, and they came to beth-din and denied, they are liable, (the denial having been in beth-din). If he beswore them five times outside of beth-din, (and they denied), and they came to beth-din and admitted, they are not liable. If they denied (in beth-din), they are liable for (denial of) each oath. If he beswore them before beth-din five times, and they denied, they are liable for only one oath. R. Shimon said: Why is this so? Because (once they denied in beth-din,) they can no longer claim otherwise. ⁷7) If both denied in the same interval, they are both liable. If one after the other, the first is liable, (but not the second, for once the first denied (having witnessed), one witness is unfit to testify by himself.) If one denied and the other admitted, the denier is liable. If there were two sets of witnesses — If the first denied, and then the second, they are both liable, for the testimony can stand with both of them.