Shevuos 34a

שבועות ל״ד ע״א

Shevuot 34a

Learn Shevuos 34a step by step: Aramaic beside English, every question, answer and proof colour-coded.

Open Shevuos 34a in Gemara Clarity

Topic

Why שבועת העדות applies only to monetary claims: the sources of the ברייתא, רבי אליעזר, רבי עקיבא and רבי יוסי הגלילי, and which money cases each one excludes.

Overview

This amud asks why the oath of testimony (שבועת העדות) makes a witness liable only when the case is about money. It opens with the end of a ברייתא. A קל וחומר from the deposit oath (פקדון) is knocked down, and the rule is then proven with a גזירה שוה from the word תחטא. Next, רבה בר עולא challenges רבי אליעזר's proof from the repeated word או by pointing to the oath of utterance (שבועת ביטוי). The גמרא goes back and forth over which oath testimony resembles more, and decides on deposit because it shares more features. רבי עקיבא learns the rule from the word מֵאֵלֶּה, and the גמרא explains that he excludes some money cases: land, or, according to רבי יוחנן, fines. רבי יוסי הגלילי learns it from 'he saw or he knew'. The גמרא defends his view against רבי אחא's rule on circumstantial evidence, using the story of רבי שמעון בן שטח, and concludes that he exempts witnesses about a fine. The amud ends as רב יהודה begins a question about a loan given in front of witnesses, which continues on the next amud.

Opening lines

The steps (24)

1. ProofA קל וחומר from the deposit oath to the testimony oath
2. RejectionRefuting the קל וחומר: testimony is stricter in other ways
3. ProofThe verbal analogy from the word 'shall sin'
4. Challengeרבה בר עולא: the oath of utterance breaks רבי אליעזר's proof
5. ResolutionBetter to learn from the deposit oath because both use the word תחטא
6. ChallengeUtterance and testimony both bring a sin-offering
7. ResolutionDeposit shares a whole list of features with testimony
8. ChallengeUtterance shares its own list of features with testimony
9. ConclusionDeposit's features are more numerous
10. Statementרבי עקיבא learns the limit from the words 'of these'
11. ChallengeWhy not flip it the other way?
12. Resolutionרבי עקיבא also relies on רבי אליעזר's 'or's
13. QuestionWhat is the difference between רבי אליעזר and רבי עקיבא?
14. ResponseThe difference is witnesses about land
15. QuestionWhat is the difference according to רבי יוחנן?
16. ResponseThe difference is witnesses about a fine
17. Statementרבי יוסי הגלילי: 'he saw or he knew' points to money testimony
18. ChallengeDoes רבי יוסי הגלילי reject רבי אחא's camel ruling?
19. Proofרבי שמעון בן שטח's story: the man with the bloody sword
20. StatementNo execution without two witnesses, but Heaven punishes
21. ResolutionCapital cases never have 'seeing without knowing'
22. ConclusionWitnesses to a fine are exempt in the view of רבי יוסי הגלילי
23. ProofWhy fines fail the 'seeing alone' test
24. Questionרב יהודה begins a question about a loan given in front of witnesses