Shevuos 33a

שבועות ל״ג ע״א

Shevuot 33a

Learn Shevuos 33a step by step: Aramaic beside English, every question, answer and proof colour-coded.

Open Shevuos 33a in Gemara Clarity

Topic

שבועת העדות: counting liabilities for a multi-part denial, and whether witnesses to a קנס are liable

Overview

This amud first finishes a discussion about two sets of witnesses: רבינא explains that the first set is liable because the second set could not testify at that moment, since they were relatives through wives who were גוססות but still alive. Then a new משנה teaches that when witnesses deny a claim with several parts, their own wording decides the count. A general denial means one liability, and naming each item means a liability for each one. The משנה also lists claims such as נזק, חצי נזק, כפל, ארבעה וחמשה, אונס ומפתה, injuries, and burning a grain stack on יום הכפורים, and makes witnesses who deny them liable. The גמרא asks whether witnesses to a קנס are liable, and shows that the question exists only for the רבנן, who say admitting exempts from a fine and that דבר הגורם לממון is not money. It tries to prove the answer from each case in the משנה, but each case is explained as ממון: חצי נזק as money or as צרורות, כפל and ארבעה וחמשה because of the קרן, and אונס ומפתה because of בושת and פגם. The long list is then justified: the רישא teaches that חצי נזק צרורות is money, and the סיפא rejects רבי נחוניא בן הקנה about damage done on יום הכפורים. At the end, the גמרא begins a new proof from a ברייתא, which continues on the next amud.

Opening lines

The steps (29)

1. ChallengeBut the second set of witnesses is still available
2. ResolutionThe second set was disqualified as relatives at that moment
3. StatementA general denial of a multi-part claim makes them liable only once
4. StatementDenying each item by name makes them liable for each one
5. StatementA deposit of several grains with one general denial
6. StatementThe same grain claim with each item named in the denial
7. StatementWitnesses denying claims of damages, special payments and injuries are liable
8. QuestionAre witnesses to a fine liable for שבועת העדות?
9. StatementNo question according to רבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון
10. StatementThe question arises according to the רבנן
11. QuestionWhich view do those רבנן hold about 'something that causes money'?
12. ResponseThey must hold like the רבנן of our סוגיא
13. QuestionThe question stated clearly: is denying a fine denying money?
14. ProofProof from the משנה's case of half-damage
15. RejectionThe משנה follows the view that half-damage is money
16. ChallengeWhat about the view that half-damage is a fine?
17. ResolutionThe משנה means half-damage of pebbles
18. ProofProof from double payment
19. RejectionLiable because of the principal
20. ProofProof from four and five payment
21. RejectionAgain, liable because of the principal
22. ProofA proof from the rape and seduction case
23. RejectionLiable because of humiliation and degradation
24. ChallengeWhy list so many cases?
25. ResolutionThe first part teaches that pebble damage is money
26. ResolutionThe last part: burning grain on יום הכפורים
27. QuestionWhich view does this reject?
28. ResponseRejecting רבי נחוניא בן הקנה
29. ProofA new proof from a ברייתא begins