Shevuot 37B

הא קיימא שניה!

Doesn’t the second set stand ready to testify, so that the refusal of the first set of witnesses does not affect a monetary claim? Evidently, a denial of a monetary claim to which there are witnesses is still considered a denial.

אמר רבינא: הכא במאי עסקינן ⁠– כגון שהיתה שניה בשעת כפירת הראשונה קרובין בנשותיהן, ונשותיהן גוססות. מהו דתימא: רוב גוססין למיתה; קא משמע לן: השתא מיהת חיי נינהו ולא שכיבי.

Ravina said: Here we are dealing with a case where at the time of the denial by the first set, the second set of witnesses were related to one another through their wives, so that the second set was unfit to provide testimony; and their wives were moribund. Lest you say: Most moribund people actually die soon after that, and the witnesses are considered fit to provide testimony, the baraita teaches us that in any event they are currently alive and have not died. The second set was therefore unfit to provide testimony.

תא שמע: בעל הבית שטען טענת גנב בפקדון, ונשבע, והודה, ובאו עדים; אם עד שלא באו עדים הודה ⁠– משלם קרן וחומש ואשם. אם משבאו עדים הודה ⁠– משלם תשלומי כפל ואשם!

The Talmud suggests: Come and hear a proof from a baraita: In the case of a homeowner acting as a bailee who falsely claimed that a thief stole a deposit from him, and the homeowner took an oath to that effect and then admitted that he was lying, and witnesses came and testified that the item was not stolen from the homeowner, the halakha depends on the circumstances. If he admitted to his lie before the witnesses came and testified, he pays the principal value of the item and the additional 1/5th payment for denying that he possessed the deposit, and he brings a guilt-offering as atonement for a false oath on a deposit. If he admitted his guilt after the witnesses came and testified, he pays the double payment and brings a guilt-offering. The baraita indicates that even in the case of a monetary claim to which there are witnesses, one is liable to bring a guilt-offering.