Shevuot 32A

עד שישמעו מפי התובע!

until they hear a demand to testify directly from the mouth of the plaintiff.

רץ אחריהן איצטריכא ליה; סלקא דעתך אמינא: כיון דרץ אחריהן ⁠– כמאן דאמר להו דמי; קא משמע לן.

The Talmud answers: Mentioning the case of the plaintiff pursuing them was necessary for Shmuel, as otherwise it could enter your mind to say: Since the plaintiff is pursuing them, it is like the case of one who says to them directly to testify. Therefore, Shmuel teaches us that although the intent of the plaintiff is for them to testify, the witnesses are liable only if he tells them so explicitly.

והא נמי תנינא: שבועת העדות כיצד? אמר לעדים ״בואו והעידוני״, ״שבועה״ כו׳ ⁠– אמר אין, לא אמר לא!

The Talmud asks: But this too, we learn in the Mishnah: Liability to bring a sliding-scale offering for taking a false oath of testimony, how so? In a case where the plaintiff said to two witnesses: Come and testify on my behalf, and they replied: On our oath, etc., from which it can be inferred that if the plaintiff said this to the witnesses, yes, they are liable, and if he did not say this to the witnesses, no, they are not liable.

״אמר״ לאו דוקא.

The Talmud rejects this: No proof may be cited from the Mishnah, as perhaps when the tanna states: In a case where the plaintiff said, he did not mean that this is the halakha only in a case where he specifically verbalized his demand that they testify; rather, the same would be true even if he conveyed his intent in a non-verbal manner.

דאי לא תימא הכי, גבי פקדון דקתני: שבועת הפקדון כיצד? אמר לו: ״תן לי פקדון שיש לי בידך״ ; הכא נמי ⁠– אמר אין, לא אמר לא?! הא ״וכחש בעמיתו״ כל דהו!

As, if you do not say so and assert that the language of the Mishnah is precise and one is liable only if the oath was in response to a verbal demand, then as for the Mishnah (36b), which teaches with regard to a deposit: Liability to bring a guilt-offering for taking a false oath on a deposit, how so? In a case where the owner said to the bailee: Give me the deposit that belongs to me and is in your possession, would you say there, also, that if the owner said this to the bailee, yes, he is liable, and if he did not say this to the bailee, no, he is not liable? But doesn’t the verse “And deals falsely with his colleague in a matter of deposit” (Leviticus 5:21) indicate that the bailee is liable for any denial of the deposit at all, unrelated to the nature of the claim raised by the owner of the item?