Study Shevuot folio 37A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
להו: הזיד בשבועת הפקדון והתרו בו, מהו? כיון דחידוש הוא – דבכל התורה לא אשכחן מזיד דמייתי קרבן, והכא מייתי קרבן – לא שנא אתרו ביה ולא שנא לא אתרו ביה? או דלמא, הני מילי היכא דלא אתרו ביה; אבל היכא דאתרו ביה – מילקא לקי, קרבן לא מייתי; או דלמא, הא והא עבדינן.
to them: If one intentionally took a false oath on a deposit and witnesses forewarned him, what is the halakha? Is it the case that since the halakha of an oath on a deposit is a novelty, as in the entire Torah we do not find another case where one who transgressed intentionally brings an offering for atonement, but here he does bring an offering for transgressing the prohibition intentionally, there is no difference whether witnesses forewarned him and there is no difference whether they did not forewarn him, and he is liable to bring a guilt-offering, though generally, there is no offering brought when there was forewarning? Or perhaps, that matter of bringing a guilt-offering when one intentionally takes a false oath applies only when they did not forewarn him; but when they forewarned him, he is flogged, as this is the standard punishment for an intentional transgression, and he does not bring an offering. Or perhaps, we impose both lashes and a guilt-offering.
אמרו ליה, תנינא: חמורה הימנה שבועת הפקדון, שחייבין על זדונה מכות ועל שגגתה אשם בכסף שקלים. מדקאמר ליה על זדונה מכות – מכלל דאתרו ביה; וקאמר מכות אין, קרבן לא.
They said to Rav Kahana: We learn in a baraita: The halakhot of an oath on a deposit are more stringent than the halakhot of an oath of testimony, as one is liable to receive lashes for intentionally taking a false oath on a deposit, and for unwittingly taking a false oath on a deposit one is liable to bring a guilt-offering worth at least two silver shekels; whereas one who takes a false oath of testimony, whether intentionally or unwittingly, brings a sin-offering. From the fact that the baraita states that for intentionally taking a false oath on a deposit one is liable to receive lashes, by inference it can be understood that the baraita is referring to a case where witnesses forewarned him, as one cannot receive lashes without forewarning, and it is stating: Yes, he is liable to receive lashes, but he is not liable to bring an offering. The baraita, then, resolves the question of Rav Kahana.