json/Mishnah/Rishonim on Mishnah/Bartenura/Seder Nezikin/Bartenura on Mishnah Shevuot/English/merged.json

{
    "title": "Bartenura on Mishnah Shevuot",
    "language": "en",
    "versionTitle": "merged",
    "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/Bartenura_on_Mishnah_Shevuot",
    "text": [
        [
            [
                "שבועות שתים – it is written in Scripture explicitly (Leviticus 5:4): “Or when a person utters an oath to bad or good purpose.” If he eats, it is for a good purpose; if he doesn’t eat, it is for a bad purpose, for he afflicts himself, and the same law applies for everything that is yes/positive or no/negative in the future, for to do bad or to do good in the future is implied.",
                "שהן ארבע – one includes two others that are not written, and they are, yes/positive and no/negative that is of the past, such as “I ate or I did not eat, or I did not eat and I ate.",
                "יעידות הטומאה – (Leviticus 5:2): “Or when a person touches an unclean thing” that is stated in Leviticus near the defiling of the Temple and its holy objects.",
                "שתים – are written in the Biblical verse, as it is written (Leviticus 5:2): “and the fact has escaped him, and then, being unclean, [he realizes his guilt],” implying that the defilement that escaped from him, and through that act of forgetfulness/having escaped from him, he ate holy meat, which is one [sin], or entered into the Sanctuary, which is two.",
                "שהן ארבע – one can include another two obligations. The escaping from him of holiness and the escaping of him of the Sanctuary and he remembered the defilement.",
                "יציאות שבת – removal from the private domain to the public domain, [whereby] we derive it from the Biblical verse (Exodus 36:6): “Moses thereupon had this proclamation made throughout the camp: [‘Let no man or woman make further effort towards gifts for the sanctuary!’]; you should not remove from the private domain to the public domain.",
                "אחת – one – to the person who stands outside and stretches his hand inside and took the object and removed it, and the other for the person who stands inside and takes the object from his place and takes it outside.",
                "שהן ארבע – one can add another two of bringing in, even though they are not written, for just as the Torah was strict from domain to domain regarding removing/taking out, so it was strict on bringing inside, one for the purpose standing inside and removing his hand to outside and taking the object and bringing [it] inside, and the other – for the person who stands outside and takes the object from his place and stretches [his hand] inside and places it [within].",
                "מראות נגעים שתים – it is written in Scripture (Leviticus 13:2): “a swelling, [a rash], or a discoloration, [and it develops into a scaly affection on the skin of his body.”",
                "שהן ארבע – the subspecies of a swelling and the subspecies of a discoloration, and they are not written explicitly in Scripture."
            ],
            [
                "שיש בה ידיעה בתחלה – this refers to awareness of uncleanness, for since small/trifle things are explained in the opening clause [of the Mishnah] and it goes back and explains oaths which are large mattes, and the transporting [of objects on the Sabbath] and appearances [of plagues] , each and every one is explained in its own tractate, therefore, he (i.e., the Tanna) does not explain them in this Tractate, and they are not taught here other than because they are similar to each other in two sorets which yield four subdivisions.",
                "וידיעה בתחלה – that he knew that he became defiled.",
                "וידיעה בסוף – from when he ate the Holy thing in an act of forgetfulness/that it escaped him, or entered into the Sanctuary in act of forgetfulness/that it escaped him and he left, and it became known to him that in defilement he ate or that in defilement he entered [into the Sanctuary].",
                "ןהעלם בינתיים– when he ate the Holy food, the defilement or the sanctity [of the place] in act of forgetfulness/that it escaped him or he entered into the Sanctuary and in an act of forgetfulness/that it escaped him, the defilement or the Sanctuary.",
                "הרי זה בעולה ויורד – a burnt offering for a wealthy individual and something of lesser value for a poor person. The wealthy person brings a sin-offering of cattle, and a poor person the sin offering of fowl, and the poorest of he poor, one tenth of an Ephah, which is a meal offering of sinner that is mentioned in every place.",
                "שעיר הנעשה בפנים – the goat of Yom Kippur that he brings from its blood inside.",
                "תולה – to protect him from suffering/trials.",
                "עד שיודע לו – that he ate Holy things in a state of ritual impurity, and he brings the Sacrifice of Higher or -11; Tractate Shevuot 21a)."
            ],
            [
                "אין בה ידיעה בתחלה – he did not know about this ritual defilement at all, this does not into the category of [a required] sacrifice ever, for the sacrifice dos not come other than when he has awareness [of ritual impurity] at the beginning.",
                "שעיר הנעשה בחוץ – that is offered on the outer altar [which yields blood to be sprinkled] during the Musaf of Yom Kippur.",
                "ויום הכיפורים – itself atones with the goat.",
                "שנאמר – regarding the goat that is offered on the outer altar (Numbers 29:11): “And there shall be one goat for a sin offering, in addition to the sin offering of expiation,” for the sin offering of expiation is the goat that is offered inside and Scripture juxtaposed them, to teach you just as one expiates/atones, so too the other atones/expiates; the inside [goat] doesn’t come other than with a matter about which there is awareness, and what is this awareness? At the outset, as we derive from Scripture, as it is written (Leviticus 16:21): “[Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat and confess over all the iniquities and transgressions of the Israelites,] whatever their sins, [putting them on the head of the goat],” which implies that for those that come within the category of sin - , that they should have awareness of them at the conclusion, and it is impossible that to come within the category of sin-offering other than if they had awareness at the outset, even the goat that is offered outside does not atone other than if he as awareness of it, and what is it? Awareness at the conclusion and not at the beginning, for they are not included in the category of sacrifice, and this atoning is complete atonement/expiation without doubt."
            ],
            [
                "שעירי הרגלים – On all the Festivals, it was stated, “the oats as a sin offering”” (see, for example, Numbers 28:22 for Passover).",
                "ושעירי ראשי חדשים מכפרים – as it is written with regard to the goat on the New Moon/Rosh Hodesh (Numbers 28:15): “And there shall be one goat as a sin offering,” a sin that one doesn’t recognize other than God [Himself], this goat will atone, and that means that he has no awareness neither at the beginning nor at the end. And the goats of the Festivals, we learn from the goat for the New Moon through a juxtaposition, for “goat” could have been written in all the Festivals, and it (i.e., the Torah) wrote, “and a goat”, and the VAV adds on the first matter, to make the juxtaposition that just as this one expiates/atones, so all of the others atone.",
                "כל השעירים כפרתן שוה – all the goats of the Musaf [sacrificial] service, whether they are the goats of the festival or the goat of the New Moon, whether the goat that is offered outside on Yom Kippur, their expiation/atonement is equivalent, for they atone whether there was no awareness at the at the beginning but there is awareness at the end, or whether there is no awareness either neither at the beginning nor at the end, whether about someone pure who ate something ritually impure, and we derive from it, for a defilement that occurred whether for one or the other. But a goat that is prepared for sacrifice inside on Yom Kippur, they did not disagree about, for it is assigned to the case where he has awareness at the beginning but does not have awareness of it at the end, as we have stated.",
                "היה רבי שמעון אומר – this is for one who retracted, that it [i.e., the Mishnah] took it, because it was necessary to state that they said to him: what is the Halakha if they are offered together?",
                "מהו שיקרבו – if he lost a goat that was set aside for Yom Kippur, and they were expiated with another [goat] and this one (i.e., the original goat) was found on the Festival (i.e. Sukkot) or on Rosh Hodesh, what is the law regarding that it be offered for the purpose of the goat [of the sin offering] of that day?",
                "אמרו לו הואיל ואין כפרתן שוה – It is Rabbi Meir who says to Rabbi Shimon, it is all well if you said that all of them their expiation is equivalent, then let it be offered, for all of them are atone for one expiation, but according to you, this one that was set aside/separated to expiate for a case where he had no awareness at first, and there is awareness of it at the conclusion, how can he sacrifice [it] on the Festival to expiate where he had no awareness [of having sinned through uncleanness] either at the beginning or at the conclusion, or on Rosh Hodesh to atne for a pure person who ate something impure/unclean?",
                "לכפר על טומאת מקדש וקדשיו – because in this, they are equivalent, even though their expiations are divided, he can offer it up."
            ],
            [
                "משמו – of Rabbi Shimon. And the anonymous Rabbi Shimon (without his patronymic) is Rabbi Shimon bar Yohai."
            ],
            [
                "ועל זדון טומאת מקדש וכו' – the anonymous section of the Talmud took this.",
                "שעיר הנעשה בפנים ויום הכפורים מכפרים – as it is written (Leviticus 16:21): “and transgressions of the Israelites, whatever their sins, [putting them on the head of the goat.” But the transgressions are the rebellious acts (as opposed to sins of passion).",
                "החמורות והקלות וכו' – Our entire Mishnah is explained in the Gemara in the following manner (Tractate Shevuot 12b): whether minor or serious whether the act were perpetrated willfully or inadvertently, those that were done inadvertently, whether he was aware of the doubt concerning them or not aware of the doubt, meaning to say, whether he was aware that there came to his hand something that was doubtfully forbidden fat and he ate it, whether he did not know that something was doubtfully forbidden fat. And which are the minor [transgressions], whether they are positive or negative commandments, and which are the stringent cases, for extirpation or death at the hands of the Jewish court [The goat that is sent away provides atonement]."
            ],
            [
                "אחד ישראל ואחד כהנים – this is what he said: [It effects atonement all the same] whether one is an Israelite or whether one is a Kohen or whether one is an anointed priest, the goat that is sent away atones in the rest of the sins and there is no distinction between them.",
                "אלא שדם הפר מכפר על הכהנים על טומאת מקדש וקדשיו – all that the inner goat expiates for the Jewish people (i.e., non-Kohanim), meaning/it is identical with the suspense/doubt of the Israelites depend upon an awareness [of sin] at the beginning but there isn’t awareness at the end, and willful defilement of the Sanctuary and its Holy Things, and similarly the atonement of the outer goat, the bullock of the High Priest that is sacrificed on Yom Kippur which atones for the Kohanim.",
                "רבי שמעון אומר כשם – that you admit regarding the blood of the inner goat that atones for the Israelites, an expiation without confession, for there is no confession regarding the inner goat, other than the goat which is sent away, so too, the blood of the bullock without any confession atones for the Kohanim on their defilement of the Sanctuary and its Holy Things, one adds for him his confessions of the bullock in place of the confession of the goat that is sent away to expiate for the Kohanim with the rest of the sins, for they have no atonement with the goat that is sent away."
            ]
        ],
        [
            [
                "ידיעות הטומאה. נטמא וידע – [that he became defiled and was aware] that he became defiled at the time of of defilement or afterwards.",
                "נעלמה ממנו טומאה – and through that same act of forgetfulness/lack of awareness, he ate Holy Things, which is one [count], and he entered into the Sanctuary/Temple, which is two [counts], as it is written (Leviticus 5:4): “and the fact has escaped him,” and he is unclean/defiled, which implies that the defilement escaped him. But because he is not liable for it other than if he was aware at the beginning that he had become defiled/unclean and afterwards, it escaped him, because of this, it (i.e., the Mishnah) calls it: ידיעות הטמאה/awareness (plural) of uncleanness.",
                "ונעלם ממנו הקודש – or the Temple/Sanctuary, but if he ate Holy Things or entered into the Temple, and he was mindful of defilement, there are two other [counts] that are not written [in the Bible].",
                "נעלם ממנו זה וזה – it is not from the numbers of awareness, but it comes to tell us that even though that at the time of eating Holy Things or entering into the Temple, he was not mindful neither of defilement nor of the holiness [of the Temple], and he Is liable for the sliding-scale offering (depending upon his financial situation)."
            ],
            [
                "אחד הנכנס לעזרה – [to the courtyard] first.",
                "ואחר הנכנס תוספת – that they added to it afterwards.",
                "שאין מוספין וכו' – therefore, this is holy like the first (i.e., the courtyard).",
                "אלא במלך – as Scripture states (Exodus 25:9): “Exactly as I show you – the pattern of the Tabernacle and the pattern of all its furnishings – so shall you make it,” this is an additional verse for expounding for the generations. For in the days of Moses, he was King and Prophet and his brother (i.e. Aaron) was the High Priest, and there were there Urim and Thumim (in the High Priest’s breast plate) and seventy elders, even so also all generations.",
                "ובשתי תודות – with two loaves of thanksgiving offerings, and they would carry them in the circumference around until the end of the border that they sanctify, and there they consume (that is inside) and burn the second (which is outside) , and by the word of the prophet, it is consumed and by the word of the prophet it is burned, and that is exactly what is taught in the Mishnah: “the one offered inside is eaten and the one offered outside is burned.” But from Nehemiah ben Chakhliah, he completed it as it is written regarding him (Nehemiah 12:31): “and I appointed two large thanksgiving [choirs] and processions.”",
                "ובשיר – the song that they would recite (Psalms 30:2): “I extol You, O LORD, for you have lifted me up,” But during the Second Temple period, even though there was no King and no Urim and Thumim, the Holiness that Solomon sanctified of the First Temple was a holiness for its time period and a holiness for the time to come. But the service of Nehemiah ben Chakhliah was for mere memory."
            ],
            [
                "נטמא בעזרה – and he knew that he was defiled and prostrated himself with this act that escaped him towards the inside, even though he did wait/delay, or prostrated towards the outside, and he who delayed/waited in order to prostrate. But the measure of the prostration is in order that a person can read this Biblical verse in their inhabitable condition (restoration) (II Chronicles 7:12): “they knelt with their faces to the ground and prostrated themselves, praising the LORD, ‘For He is good, for His steadfast love is eternal,” and this is the Biblical verse.",
                "או שבא לו בארוכה (if he went out by the longer way, he is liable) – hat he left through the longer path, for there is something shorter than It, and even if he did not first wait/delay, he is liable.",
                "ובקצרה פטור – where he didn’t prostrate, and did not wait, and left the shorter route, he is exempt.",
                "זו היא מצוה עשה שבמקדש – for there is here (Numbers 5:2): “[Instruct the Israelites] to remove from camp…anyone defiled [by a corpse].”",
                "שאין חייבין עליה – the Jewish court, the bull for an unwitting communal sin, for if they erred unwittingly and error in this teaching, and taught to him that he should leave by the longer way, hey don’t bring on the inadvertent error of this teaching a bull for an unwitting communal sin."
            ],
            [
                "ואיזו היא מצות עשה שבנדה – which is similar to that which in the Sanctuary, that defilement occurred to him when he came with legal permission to entrance [into the Temple], if the Jewish court erred in this teaching , they are liable for a bull for an unwitting communal sin (as a result of an erroneous Halakhic decision handed down by the Great Sanhedrin).",
                "היה משמש עם הטהורה – that [his penis] entered [her vagina] with legal permission and she said to him: ‘I have become ritually defiled now,” and he removed it immediately while his limb was hard, he is liable. But rather, he should stand without coitus until the limb dies and he can remove it without difficulty, and this is the positive commandment regarding the menstruating woman."
            ],
            [
                "רבי אליעזר אומר השרץ ונעלם – as it states in Scripture (Leviticus 5:2): “or the carcass of an unclean creeping thing – and the fact has escaped him,” it is an additional Biblical verse, for above, it is written, “or when a person touches any unclean thing” (Leviticus 5:2), and the creeping thing is included in the unclean thing, but rather, to teach you that if he knew that he had certainly been defiled, but he doesn’t know if it was a creeping thing or if it was through a carcass, he is not liable for a sacrifice if he ate Holy Things until he has awareness at the beginning if it was through a creeping thing that he was defiled or through a carcass that he was defiled. But Rabbi Akiva holds that since he definitely knew that he was defiled, even though it was not made clear to him if the defilement that he sustained was with a creeping thing or a carcass, he is liable. And both of them exempt him from unawareness of the Temple (i.e., that he entered the Temple while ritually impure, aware that he was ritually impure, but unaware that he has entered the Temple. He is liable for a sin-offering as atonement). Rabbi Yishmael requires [the sacrifice] and the Halakha is according to Rabbi Yishmael."
            ]
        ],
        [
            [
                "שבועות שתים. שאוכל ושלא אוכל – these are the two which are explained, as it is written (Leviticus 5:4): “[Or when a man utters an oath] to bad or good purpose –[whatever a man may utter in an oath] that implies in the future, I will not eat for a bad purpose. I will eat for a good purpose.",
                "שאכלתי ושלא אכלתי – these are additional two from the exposition of the Sages.",
                "מדבר ומביא קרבן – because of the abrogation/nullification of his speech, and since it is because of the abrogation of his speech, even this is an abrogation of his speech for when he says: “I will not eat”, his intention is to prohibit himself from any amount.",
                "שבועה שלא אוכל ואכל ושתה – evn though that drinking is included with eating, he is not liable other than for one [sacrifice], for it is to him like eating and he goes back and eats in one act of forgetfulness [as the cause of the transgression].",
                "שלא אוכל ושלא אשתה – these are two oaths to them. And even though when he stated “I will not eat,” he also forbids himself to drink, for drinking is included with eating, and he then retraced and stated: “and furthermore, I will not drink,” he should have said that an oath does not take effect on another oath, it is different here since he said at the outset [in the first part of the Mishnah], “I will not eat.” And then afterwards stated, “I will not drink,” he has revealed his intention that the “eating” that he stated at the outset [at the beginning of the Mishnah] was only for eating [and not anything else]."
            ],
            [
                "חייב על כל אחת ואחת – for since he stated, “bread” and “bread of each and every species,” one learns from it to allot/assign, for if it is to prohibit upon him these species and no others, he would have had to state, bread [made from] wheat, and similarly that of barley and that of spelt."
            ],
            [
                "שבועה שלא אשתה יין ושמן ודבש – In the Gemara (Tractate Shevuot 23b) it establishes it as, for example, when his fellow urges him and says to him: “Come and drink with me wine, oil and honey. He should have said to him an oath that he I would not drink with you and nothing further. For when he took an oath, why did he urge him that I will take an oath regarding wine, oil and honey.” We learn from it that he comes to allot/assign (i.e., to divide)."
            ],
            [
                "ואכל נבלות חייב – that they are appropriate for eating, for if not, for the All-Merciful forbad them.",
                "ר\"ש פור – that was subjected to an oath and he stands over them, and the dispute between Rabbi Shimon and the first Tanna/teacher [concerns] including things that are permitted with things that are forbidden, as for example when one states an oath “that I will not eat slaughtered and meat of animals torn, the First Teacher holds that since the oath takes effect with that which is slaughtered, it also takes effect on that of torn animals, for the prohibition can take legal hold where another prohibition already exists regarding a more comprehensive prohibition (i.e., having a wider range of prohibited objects), but Rabbi Shimon holds that one prohibition can take no legal hold where another prohibition already exists (i.e., you can punish, or impose sacrificial expiation only for the first one) But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Shimon.",
                "אשתו אסורה – for he ate food, and even according to Rabbi Shimon. For the reason that he is exempt in the first [oath] is not because they are not things eaten, but rather, that the oath doesn’t take effect on something that is forbidden."
            ],
            [
                "ואחד דברם של אחרים – as he explains that I will give [something] to so-and-so.",
                "שאין בהן ממש – it implies two ways, as, for example, he changed and implies that he changed it and it implies that there is no benefit in them, as for example, “that I will throw a stone into the sea.”",
                "מרבוי הכתוב (from an extension supplied by Scripture) – (Leviticus 5:4): “whatever a man may utter in an oath [- and, though he has known it, the fact has escaped him].” But there is a dispute between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yishmael, for Rabbi Akiva expounds throughout the Torah extensions [of the scope of Biblical texts] and limitations of Biblical texts, but Rabbi Yishmael expounds general rules/principles and specifications; Rabbi Akiva expounds (Leviticus 5:4): “Or when a person utters an oath” is an extension, “to a bad or good purpose” is a limitation. What is an extension. What is an extension of scope? An extension are all words of what he did in the past like what will take place in the future; and what is a limitation? He limits the matter of a commandment. But Rabbi Yishmael expounds (Leviticus 5:4): “Or when a man utters an oath,” is a generalization; “to a bad or good purpose” (Leviticus 5:4) is a specification; “whatever a man may utter by an oath” (Leviticus 5:4), he once again states a generalization: “a generalization and a specification and [followed by] a generalization, one is guided by what the specification implies; just as the specification is interpreted for what happens in the future, so also everything regarding what will happen in the future. But the Halakha is according to Rabbi Akiva."
            ],
            [
                "נשבע לבטל את המצוה – because of the oath on a statement [to reinforce a promise or an obligation or to confirm the veracity of a story], but he is flogged because of an oath taken in vain.",
                "שהיה בדין שיהיה חייב. כדברי ר' יהודה בן בתירא – meaning to say, that whereas according to the words of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira, he is liable because of an oath on a statement for Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira would say: “Now if concerning matters of free choice, etc.”",
                "שלא עשה בה לאו כהן – and in the Biblical verse it is written (Leviticus 5:4): “[Or when a person utters with his lips an oath] to bad or good purpose,” which implies a matter which has a positive (i.e., yes) and a negative (i.e., no), but the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira."
            ],
            [
                "שבועה שלא אוכל ככר זו. שבועה שלא אוכלנה – the reason that he said that “I will not eat” and then he repeats saying that I won’t eat it, he is not liable other than one [count], for the oath does not take effect on [another] oath, but if he stated first that he would not eat it and then repeats that he will not eat it and then repeats saying that he will not eat and he eats all of it, he is liable for two [counts], for if he stated that he will not eat it, he is not liable until he eats all of it, and if he repeats and states that he will not eat, since he ate from an olive’s [bulk], he is liable, therefore, the final oath takes effect and makes him liable when he eats from it an olive’s [bulk]. And when he repeats and eats all of it, he is liable because of the concluding oath.",
                "שבועה שלא אוכלנה שבועה שלא אוכלנה – even though that from the second oath “that I will not eat it,” we learn that an oath does not take effect on [another] oat, The Mishnah teaches us a third oath to inform us that is an obligation for there isn’t in the last oaths but these oaths and they did not go to idleness but if they found a place, they would take place and if he did consulted with a Sage [for absolution] on the first [oath]. The second [oath] is neutralized in its place and he is forbidden in the manner because of the second oath, and similarly, if he consulted [with a Sage] on he two [oaths], the third takes effect, because the Sage uproots the vow from its essence and it is like he had not taken an oath and the second one takes effect retroactively for the first [oath] is like he it didn’t exist and similarly, when he consults [with a Sage] about the two [oaths], it is like they didn’t exist and the third [oath] takes effect retroactively."
            ],
            [
                "אם לא ראיתי גמל פורח באויר – meaning to say, they will forbid all produce/fruit that is in the world if I didn’t see, etc. [i.e., a camel flying in the air].",
                "נחש כקורת בית הבד – like the shape of the beam of an olive press and its form. As if like the thickness of the beam of olive press, this would not be an oath taken in vain/false oath, asserting something impossible, where there a lot [of them].",
                "שבועה שלא נדיעך – it is the abrogation/nullification of a commandment, for he is obligated to testify as it states (Leviticus 5;1): “he does not give information – so that he is subject to punishment.”"
            ],
            [
                "אכלה עבר על שבועת שוא – this is what he said: if he ate it , he has violated a oath taken in vain alone. If he didn’t eat it, he violated even an oath on a statement/rash oath (i.e., an oath taken by a person to reinforce a promise or an obligation or to confirm the veracity of a story – and is liable to bring a sing-offering). For once he swore that he would eat this loaf, he is obligated to eat it, and when he then took another oath [afterwards] that he would not eat it, he swore to abrogate/nullify the Mitzvah, and is flogged eause of the oath taken in vain, whether he would eat it or whether he would eat it, and if he did not eat it, he would be liable for two [violations], because of an oath taken in vain and because of oath on a statement/rash oath."
            ],
            [
                "באנשים ובנשים – since it was necessary to teach [in the Mishnah] that the oath of testimony (i.e., that witnesses have information supporting his case and the plaintiff requests that they testify on his behalf, and they refuse, and deny that they have this information, they have to take an oath to this effect) applies to men and not to women, etc. (see Tractate Shevuot, Chapter 4, Mishnayot 1-4), it teaches that the oath of a statement/rash oath that applies to all of these (i.e., both men and women, etc.).",
                "ברחוקים ובקרובים – as, for example, I will give to so-and-so, whether he is not related or is related.",
                "בכשרים ובקרובים – with someone who is fit to give testimony and t one who is unfit/ineligible.",
                "מפי עצמו – that he himself uttered an oath from his own mouth, but if others made him swear that he ate but he didn’t eat, and he said, “I will not eat” but he ate or the reverse, he is exempt if he did not respond “Amen.” But if he responded “Amen,” after his fellow made him take an oath, it is as if he swore out of his own mouth."
            ],
            [
                "שבועת שוא, ברחוקים ובקרובים – he swears concerning a man that he is a woman, whether he is not related or whether he is related.",
                "אחת זו ואחת זו – the oath taken in vain/false oath and the oath of testimony are one and the same, if others forced him to take an oath he is liable if he responded, “Amen.”"
            ]
        ],
        [
            [
                "שבועות העדות נוהגת באנשים ולא בנשים – as it is written (Leviticus 5:1): “[If a person incurs guilt—when he heard a public imprecation and -] although able to testify [as one who has either seen or learned of the matter- he does not give information, so that he is subject to punishment],” the Biblical verse speaks of one who is fit to give testimony, as it is written (Deuteronomy 19:17): “the two parties to the dispute/ועמדו שני האנשים (literally, the two men)[shall appear before the LORD],” men and not women. And this Biblical verse is written [concerning] witnesses; It is stated here, “two” and it is stated above “two” (Deuteronomy 17:6): “[A person shall be put to death only on] the testimony of two or [more] witnesses; he must not be put to death on the testimony of a single witness].”",
                "ולא בקרובין – for they are unfit/disqualified to provide testimony , as it is written (Deuteronomy 24:16): “Parents shall not be put to death for children, [nor children be put to death for parents],” with the testimony of children, and the same law applies to other relatives.",
                "ולא בפסולים – as, for example, those who are liable for death and/or liable for stripes and the thief, for they are called wicked, and the Torah stated (Exodus 23:1): “you shall not join hands with the guilty [to act as a malicious witness].”",
                "ואינה נוהגת אלא בראויין להעיד – to exclude the king who does not testify (see Tractate Sanhedrin, Chapter 2, Mishnah 2) , and those who are unfit/disqualified from giving testimony according to the Rabbis such as those who are dice players and pigeon racers (see Tractate Sanhedrin, Chapter 3, Mishnah 3 and Tractate Rosh Hashanah, Chapter 1, Mishnah 8).",
                "בפני בית דין ושלא בפני בית דין מפי עצמו (out of his own mouth)- if it is from his own mouth that he swore an oath that I don’t know any testimony concerning you, he is liable, whether he took at oath before a court or not before a court.",
                "ומפי אחרים (or from the mouth of others) – as, for example, I adjure you that you should come and testify against me , and they said to him: We don’t know any testimony in your case.",
                "אינם חייבין עד שיכפרו בית דין (when they have denied -their knowledge – in court) – as it is written (Leviticus 5:1): “he does not give information, so that he is subject o punishment,” in a place where he would state it would have effect, but the Biblical verse is written concerning one who is sworn on other people’s demands (as a supposed witness that claims ignorance)."
            ],
            [
                "וחייבין – a sliding-scale offering (this offering is made when there are one of three transgressions where the financial situation of the sinner is taken into account in determining the nature of the sin-offering that he brings: violating an oath, taking a false oath to avoid giving testimony and entering the Temple or partaking of sacrifices while ritually impure. The sinner generally brings a sin-offering of a female lamb or goat, but if he cannot afford it, he may instead bring a pair of doves, one as burnt offering and the other as a sin-offering or a if he cannot afford even that, he may instead bring a meal-offering).",
                "על זדון השבועה – for it did not state concerning it \"ונעלם\" /that he concealed or hid one’s self.",
                "ועל שגגתה עם זדון העדות – that they known that the this oath was forbidden but they did not know that they are liable for a sacrifice for it.",
                "ואין חייבים על שגגתה – if they are completely in error inadvertently, for they were forced, we don’t call them \"ונשבע על השקר\"/that they swore falsely."
            ],
            [
                "ובאו לבית דין והודו פטורים – and even if they denied [that they had testimony about so-and-so] outside of the Jewish court on each oath for no denial outside the Jewish court is considered denial.",
                "כפרו בב\"ד חייבין על כל אחת ואחת – as the Biblical verse states (Leviticus 5:5): “When he realizes his guilt in any of these matters,[he shall confess that wherein he has sinned],” to be liable for each and every one.",
                "מה טעם – that they are not liable other than for one [sacrifice] even if they were silent and denied [their knowing anything] at the end, and we don’t say that a denial exists for all of them to make them liable for each and every one (i.e., testimony).",
                "הואיל – but whereas if they denied in the Jewish court the first time, they would not be able to retract and confess, for they already stated that they don’t know any testimony about him, and furthermore, they do not retract and state [testimony]; therefore, even though that they didn’t deny [knowing anything about so-and-so] until the end, all of the oaths were abrogated, except for the first one. For he fact that they were silent initially is denial, they are not worthy to be made to take an oath and if it is not denial, they are sworn in as standing witnesses. And what is an oath upon an oath? By force, when it is written (in Leviticus 5:5): “in any of these matters” – to be liable for each and every one, referring to an oath taken outside the Jewish court and they denied it in the Jewish court as it is written [in Scripture] that he would administer an oath to them when they would come to the Jewish court and they would testify and they would not leave in idleness, and it is appropriate for them to divide if they denied there at first, it would be appropriate to retract and to administer to them an oath."
            ],
            [
                "כפרו שניהם כאחת – in an interval equivalent to the time of speaking (“Greetings to you, My teacher.”).",
                "בזה אחר זה – that there was between [the testimony of] this one and [the testimony of] that one more than an interval equivalent to the time of speaking.",
                "הראשון חייב – but the second is exempt, for since the first one denied, the second one is furthermore not appropriate to testify because he is an individual (and testimony requires two or more individuals).",
                "שתיהן חייבות – in the Gemara (Tractate Shevuot 32b-33a) raises the objection – why is the first [set of witnesses] liable, for the second set [of witnesses] exists? For what have the first [set of witnesses] lost through their denial? And it answers that that the our Mishnah is speaking about q case where the witnesses of the second group were related through their wives (see Rashi’s comment: they married two sisters and are not valid as a singular testimony, and they were not valid to testify when the first set [of witnesses] denied [that they knew anything to testify] and their wives were on their deathbeds, for you might have thought that we hold that most people on their deathbeds will die, it was for them as if they [i.e., their wives) had died and the first set [of witnesses] were exempt but the second set exists. It comes to tell us now however that he is not dead. But it is found that only the first set [of witnesses] alone was there at the time of the denial, and therefore, they are liable."
            ],
            [
                "תשומת יד – a loan, that he placed money in his hand.",
                "",
                "חטין ושעורין וכוסמין – the first clause [of the Mishnah] teaches us of one species and disputed claims, and the concluding clause [of the Mishnah] teaches us of one claim all of them are deposits, and disputed species."
            ],
            [
                "נזק וחצי נזק – with one-half indirect damages [caused by an animal: e.g., inadvertently kicking up pebbles or clods of earth in the course of walking causing damage) that is a due indemnity but not a fine/penalty, for we state in testimony of a fine/penalty that we don’t obligate.",
                "תשלומי כפל ושומי ארבעה וחמשה – because of the principal.",
                "ושאנס איש פלוני ופיתה את בתי – because of humiliation and deterioration, that is monetary.",
                "ושהכני בני – a striking/beating which causes no wound for which he is not liable of the death [penalty] for it, and because there isn’t death, there is a monetary [fine].",
                "ושחבל בי חברי ביוה\"כ – [and the Mishnah] took that [example] for even though it is punishable with extirpation, he is liable for a monetary [paymenbt]."
            ],
            [
                "שאני כהן – they are exempt, for witnesses are not liable other than when they denied in a mater where there is the claim of money.",
                "שאנס איש פלוני או פיתה בתו של פלוני – “and his daughter” is taught, regarding a certain individual who is a Kohen who is referred to above, [that is taught above this in the Mishnah that it refers to that a certain individual is a Kohen or a Levite, or is not the son of a divorced woman], or that he made them take an oath that a certain individual raped his daughter of that that same individual that they were speaking of him until now, they are exempt, for we require that they should hear from the mouth of the one making the claim. And in the Gemara (Tractate Shevuot 33b) it establishes it when he comes before the court with a power of attorney, for if it is the monetary claim of another [person], they would be liable, and I comes to tell us that it is not considered the inheritance of the litigant in this like the rest of money [matters], for since it is a monetary [matter] that he is asking about, it never reached his hand at all, he is not able to write a power of attorney upon it.",
                "ושחבל בי בני – injury/mayhem is wounding, they are exempt, for if they testified against him, he would be liable for death and not monetary [restitution].",
                "ושחבל בי חברי ושהדלק את גדישי בשבת – for both of them are liable for death, and exempt from monetary [restitution]."
            ],
            [
                "שאמר איש פלוני ליתן לי וכו' פטורים – as it is written regarding an oath of testimony (Leviticus 5:1): “[If a person] incurs guilt,” and it is written regarding the oath of a deposit (Leviticus 5:21): “When a person sins [and commits a trespass against the LORD by dealing deceiptfully with his fellow in the matter of a deposit or a pledge],” just as the oath of a deposit is on the claim of money that he has against his neighbor, also the oath of testimony – there must be on the claim of money that he has has of his, and the individual who claims that a certain person said to give me two-hundred zuz is not a monetary claim that he has against his fellow, for even if it is according to his words that his fellow said to him to give him two hundred zuz, his fellow is not liable to him athing on account of this statement."
            ],
            [
                "מפני שקדמה שבועה לדעות – for the All-Merciful (I.e., God) said (Leviticus 5:1): “When he has heard a public imprecation (against one who withholds testimony) and- although able to testify as one who has either seen or heard of he matter – [he does not give information, so that he is subject to punishment],” for the testimony preceded the oath and the oath did not precede the testimony."
            ],
            [
                "/אם יודעים לי עדות וכו' פטורין – as it is written (Leviticus 5:1): “although able to testify” util he specifies his witnesses."
            ],
            [
                "הם יודים לו דות ד מפי ד וכו' פטורים – for if they testified about him, their testimony would not be worth him anything."
            ],
            [
                "עד שישמעו מפי התובע – as it is written (Leviticus 5:1): “he does not give information/\"אם – לוא יגיד\" [written] fully with a VAV and and ALEPH is expounded upon thusly: if to hi he will not tell, meaning to say, the plaintiff, \"ונשא עונו\"/”so that he is subject to punishment (Leviticus 5:1), but if he said it to another,-“ he does not give information,” he is exempt [from punishment]."
            ],
            [
                "מצוה אני עליכם וכו' - and he when he says, “I command you,” in an oath.",
                "המקלל בכולם – when he blasphemes God with one of them.",
                "ר' מאיר מחייב – [the punishment of] stoning.",
                "וחכמים פוטרין – for specifically on the unique name [of God], with stoning, as it written (Leviticus 24:16): “if he pronounces the name LORD [he shall be put to death. The whole community shall stone him.], and on the euphemisms, with the explicit prohibition in the Torah [required for punishing trespassers] of (Exodus 22:27):”You shall not revile God [nor put a curse upon a chieftain among your people].” But with the oath of testimony, the Sages agree with Rabbi Meir that he is liable on the euphemisms like he is liable on the explicit name [God] for in the oath [of testimony] it is written (Leviticus 5:1): “When he has heard a public imprecation (against one who withholds testimony).",
                "המקלל עצמו – as it written (Deuteronomy 4:9): “[But] take utmost care and watch yourselves scrupulously” and all \"השמר לך\" /”take utmost care” and \"פן\" /lest or \"אל\"/do not (see Talmud Zevahim 106a) introduces nothing other than a prohibitory law.",
                "והמקלל חבירו – as it is written (Leviticus 19:14): “You shall not insult (literally, “curse”) the deaf [or place a stumbling block before the blind],” even a deaf person (the Rabbis understand this as “deaf and mute”- see Tractate Terumot, Chapter 1, Mishnah 2) who does not hear [only], and he is not strict with his insult/curse of “you shall not insult (literally curse)” , and all the more so, all other people who heard and he is strict about.",
                "יככה אלהים וכן יככה אלהים – if he said to witnesses, “may God smite you if you do not testify on my behalf. Or that he heard a person who was reading the curses that are in the Torah (see Deuteronomy 28:27-28,35): “May the LORD strike you with the Egyptian inflammation:” “The LORD will strike you with madness, blindness and dismay;” “The LORD will afflict you at the knees and thighs with a severe inflammation,” and he said to the witnesses, “”May God strike you if you do not testify on my behalf” or he said, “May God not strike you if you testify on my behalf,” or “May God bless you if you testify on my behalf,” or “May it go well with you if you testify on my behalf,” in all of these, Rabbi Meir declares liable, [by implication] “from ‘no’ you understand ‘yes’” (see Tractate Nedarim 11a), “”God should not strike you down if you testify o my behalf”, but if you don’t testify on my behalf, God will strike you. And similarly, “God will bless you if you testify on my behalf,” but if you you will not testify on my behalf, He will curse you. But in all of these, the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Meir."
            ]
        ],
        [
            [
                "שבועת הפקדון. באנשים ובנשים – since the Tanna/teacher [of the Mishnah] taught regarding the oath of testimony (see Tractate Shevuot, Chapter 4, Mishnah 1) that it applies to men, but not to women, he taught here that it applies to everyone.",
                "בקרובים – that the owner of the deposit is a relative of the one with whom the deposit is [placed].",
                "בפני בית דין ושלא בפני ב\"ד – if from his own mouth he took an oath, that he uttered an oath from his mouth or answered “amen” after an an oath and afterwards admitted to hit, he is liable for a sacrifice, as it is written (Leviticus 5:21): “by dealing deceitfully with his fellow in the matter of a deposit” of any sort.",
                "ומי אחרים – but he did not answer, “Amen,” as for example, “I impose an oath on you that you restore to me my pledge,” and he said: “I have nothing of yours in my hand,” he is not liable until he denies in the Jewish court.",
                "וחכמים אומרים – And the Halakha is according to the Sages.",
                "וחייב על זדון השבועה (one is liable if he deliberately took a false oath) – as it is not written concerning it, “it is concealed,” deliberate taking of a false oath , that he recalls about he bailment and knws that he is liable a sacrifice for his denial of it.",
                "ועל שגגתה עם זדון הפקדון (or took an oath in error, while deliberately denying bailment) – that he did not know that he is liable a sacrifice for this oath, he remembered that the bailment is with him.",
                "בכסף שקלים – that is purchased with two Selaim, for this is written concerning the ram of the guilt offering (Leviticus 5:15): “convertible into payment by silver by the sanctuary weight, [as a guilt offering].”"
            ],
            [
                "מפני שיכוך לחזור ולהודות – after denial, and it is found that in each oath, he denies the money."
            ],
            [
                "שבועה באחרונה – You have nothing in my hand, nor you, nor you,” in an oath, and now there exists an oath for all of them, But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Eliezer nor according to Rabbi Eliezer nor according to Rabbi Shimon.",
                "אפילו אמר חטה ושעורה וכוסמת – for Rabbi Meir held that a person who makes a claim [in court] of wheat from his fellow, a species of wheat is mentioned, and similarly barley, and similarly spelt, as it is written (Exodus 9:32): “but the wheat and the emmer (a kind of wheat) [were not hurt, for they ripen late].” For it is as if they made the claim of wheat and barley and spelt. But the Rabbis held that one grain/berry of wheat and of barley and of barley is mentioned. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Meir."
            ],
            [
                "שאינו משלם קנס על פי עצמו (he does not pay a fine on the basis of his own testimony) – and since he admitted, he is not liable but if he denied it also, he did not deny monetary payment.",
                "אבל משלם בושת ופגם – therefore, he denied the monetary [payment], but it is dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Shimon, for Rabbi Shimon holds that when if he said to him: ‘You raped or seduced my daughter,” he can claim a fine from him whose monetary amount is fixed at fifty silver, but he cannot claim from him humiliation and deterioration, whose monetary [figure] is not fixed, for a person will not forego the claim of a definite quantity, and demand something undefined (requiring appraisement) (see Tractate Ketubot 43a), therefore, he has denied a fine and is exempt. But the Rabbis hold that humiliation and deterioration he also claims from him, for a person will not forego something when he admits to it and will not be exempt and when he makes a claim on something when he admits to it, he is exempt; therefore, when he denies it, he has denied him monetary [payment] and he is liable. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Shimon."
            ],
            [
                "המית שורך את עבדי – it is a fine, that he pays thirty Selaim, even if it is not worth other a Denar.",
                "אמר לו עבדו הפלת את שיני – it is fine that he should set his servant free because of one of his limbs."
            ]
        ],
        [
            [
                "שבועת הדיינין – the oath that the judges impose through a partial admission of the claim, it is necessary that the claim not be less than two M’ah of silver, which is one-third of a Denar, and the Denar is six Maot and it has the weight of ninety six [pieces] of intermediate [sized] barley, and it was found that the weight of two Maot were thirty two [pieces/panacles of] barley.",
                "וההודאה – that [the judges] obligate him to take an oath on should not be less than the worthy of a equivalent of a penny, for iif what he denies to him is less than two siver [coins], or what he admitted was less than the value of the equivalent of a penny, he is not obligated for an oath according to the Torah. But, we impose an oathupon him an oath of inducement (an oath instituted by the Sages in a case where a defendant completely denies a claim, in order to clear himself of suspicion).according to the words of the Soferim/Scribes . And one who is liable for an oath according to the Torah takes an object in his hand, as for example, a Torah scroll or Tefillin (i.e., phylacteries) when he is taking anoath. But the person who is liable for an oath of inducement does not take an object in his hand, but rather, the Hannan of the synagogue or the one administering the oath takes an object in his hand at the time when his fellow swears to him. And there are three kinds of oaths according to the Torah, and not mor. He who admits to part of the claim, and [the case] of where one witness testifies against him, that he takes an oath to contradict the witness, and the oath of the bailees. But all of the rest of the oaths that are mentioned in the Mishnah are through the ordinance of the Sages, and they are like that of the Torah in the taking up of an object. And there is no difference between the oath of the Torah to the oaths that are mentioned in the Mishnah, bother than that the one who is liable to take an oath of the Torah and di dnot want to swear, the Jewish court goes into his possessions and collects from them in full payment. But the one who is one who I s liable to an oath from their words (i.e., from the Rabbis), with the ordinance of the Sages andhe doesn’t want to swear, we excommunicate him until he pays or until he swears. And if he stands in his excommunication for thirty days and does not want to take an oath nor pay, we flog him with the flogging of rebelliousness and we release him from his excommunication and he goes on his way, and we don’t descend into his possessions.",
                "אין לך בידי אלא פרוטה פטור – for the admission is not from the species of the claim, for this claimed silver and the other admitted to him copper. And especially that he claimed against him a silver coin – for he admitted to him with a coin.",
                "שתי כסף ופרוטה – for holds that he claimed against him for wheat and bareley and he admitted to him on one of these, he is liable.",
                "מפני שהוא כמשיב אבידה – and is exempt from an oath, as is taught [Tractate Gittin, Chapter 5, Mishnah 3] – that aperson who finds an o object should not take an oath because of the repair of the world. And especially when the son does not claim with certainty that the Manah of his father is in your hands, but rather perhaps. But if he made a definitive claim against him, and he said, that he did not have anything other than fifty, he is liable for a Torah-based oath, for that is not restoring a lost objec"
            ],
            [
                "מנה לי בידך ואמר לו הן – in the presence of witnesses, and as for example when he said to them, “you are my witnesses” for he can no longer is able to claim that he was demented/raged in this.",
                "פטור – [exempt] from a Torah-based oath, but we make him take the oath of inducement [to clear him of suspicion, if he completely denied the case].",
                "אין לך בידי – there was never anything [concerning having anything in my hand].",
                "חייב – [he is liable] to pay, and is not considered believable with an oath, for he is presumed to be a denier, and he denied it in the Jewish court, but not before a Jewish court, he is not presumed to be a denier."
            ],
            [
                "אלא ליטרא כסף פטור – for there isn’t here a homogeneity of the admission with the claim [of the defendant].",
                "לתך – one-half Kor fifteen Se’ah.",
                "",
                "",
                "הואיל והודה במקצת הטענה – for it is to him like his claim was for wheat and barley and he admitted to him in one of them. And the Halakha is according to Admon, but the Halakha is not according to Rabban Gamaliel that obligates in his claim wheat and he (i.e., the defendant) admitted to him regarding barley.",
                "פטור – from the oath from the Torah, not on the land and not on the utensils,f or the admission of land does not bring him to [requiring taking] an oath, for there is no law regarding an oath regarding land.",
                "הודה במקצת כלים – for there is admission and denial [with things] that are not property.",
                "חייב – to take an oath even on property through an oath by implication (i.e., the rule permitting the court to insert in an oath an affirmation to which the person concerned cold not have been compelled directly).",
                "זוקקין – causes, affects.(i.e., binds – movable chattel binds the immovable with the reference to the obligation of making oath, the two claims peferrred in one suit are considered as one lawsuit, and theoath must refer to both)."
            ],
            [
                "אין נשבעין על טענת חרש – as, for example, when the deaf-mute makes a claim against him with a gesture, for the deaf-mute/חרש that the Sages spoke of in every place is one who does not hear and does not speak (see Tractate Terumot, Chapter 1, Mishnah 2).",
                "וטענת קטן – as, for example, when the minor makes a claim against him. For Scripture states (Exodus 22:6): “When a man gives [money or goods] to a another [for safekeeping],” but the giving of a minor is not anything. [And the deaf-mute] and the imbecile is like a minor. And specifically the oath of the Torah is that which they do not impose on the claim of a minor, but the oath of inducement (i.e., where a defendant totally denies a claim to clear himself of suspicion) he is liable to take on his claim.’",
                "אבל נשבעין לקטן ולהקדש – he who comes to collect from the property of a minor, he should not collect other than through an oath. And similar one who consecrates his property [to the Temple] and a document of liability is issued against him and the owner of the liability comes to collect from the property of that which has been consecrated [to the Temple], requires an oath."
            ],
            [
                "העבדים והשטרות והקרקעות וכו' – as it is written (Exodus 22:8): “In all charges of misappropriation” – generalization; “pertaining to an ox, an ass, a sheep a garment,” – specification; “or any other loss” - he has returned and made a generalization. If a generalization is followed by a specification and this in turn, by a generalization, one must be guided by what the specification implies. Just as the specification is explanation by something that is movable and its essence is monetary, so also everything that movable and its essence is monetary, excluding real estate which are not movable ,excluding slaves which were compared to real estate, excluding documents for even though they are movables, their essence is not financial. For all of these we don’t impose oaths upon a thing dedicated [to the Temple] we don’t take an oath, as it is written, (Exodus 22:6): “When a person gives [money or goods] to another [for safekeeping,” and not of something dedicated [to the Temple].",
                "אין בהן תשלמי כפל – for in these, especially that we use an additional word for the purpose of intimating something not otherwise included (i.e., the widen the scope of a law), something like the specification as it is written in that portion (Exodus 22:8): “[he whom God declares guilty] shall pay double to his neighbor,” and not of something dedicated [to the Temple].",
                "ולא תשלומי ארבעה וחמישה – for wherever that there is not’s double paymenr, he doesn’t pay four-times or five-times [the base amount], for since there isn’t double payment, the would have would have three-time or four-time [the base] payment, but the All-Merciful stated (Exodus 22:37): “[When a man steals an ox or a sheep, and slaughters it or sells it,] he shall pay five oxen for the ox, and four sheep for the sheep,” and not three or four-fold payment.",
                "שומר חנם אינו נשבע – the unpaid bailee only has upon him an oath, as it is written (Exodus 22:7): “the owner of the house shall depose before God that he has not laid hands [on the other’s property],” and the entire portion is stated concerning the unpaid bailee,. But he does not take an oath regarding slaves and real-estate and on documents, for we derive it from what is written (Exodus 22:6): “When a man gives…to another” – a generalization; “money or goods” – a specification; “”for safekeeping,”- he returns and makes a generalization; if a generalization is followed by a specification and this in turn, by a generalization, one must be guided by what the specification implies. Just as the specification is explained as something movable and its essence is money, even all things, etc., excluding real estate which are not movables, etc. But all of these that we stated regarding them, one does not take an oath, especially the oath of the Torah, but we require the oath of inducement.",
                "נושא שכר אינו משלם – theft and loss which is written in it, to be liable, as it is written (Exodus 22:11): “But if [the animal] was stolen from him, he shall make restitution to its owner.” But slaves, and real estate and documents, he does not pay, as it is written regarding the paid bailee (Exodus 22:9): “When a man gives to another” – a generalization; “an ass, an ox, a sheep or any other animal” – a specification; “to guard” – he returns and makes a generalization, etc., as we have stated above. The [term] רעהו/to another – is written with regard to an unpaid bailee and a paid bailee, that implies, “another person” and not dedicated [to the Temple], but the borrower and the renter (i.e., the other two bailees) are not mentioned here, to exlude from them slaves and real estate and documents and dedication [to the Temple], for a borrower does not belong with real estate and not with documents for the most part, and all the more so, renters do not belong with documents, and similarly, the borrower and renters do not belong with things dedicated [to the Temple] for it is forbidden to lend and to rent that which is dedicated [to the Temple]."
            ],
            [
                "רבי מאיר אומר יש דברים שהם כקרקע – grapes that are about to be cut down is what distinguishes between the Sages and Rabbi Meir, for Rabbi Meir holds that gapes that are about to be cut are considered as [already] cut/harvested, but the Sages hold that they are not like they are cut/harvested. But the Halakha is according to the Sages. And especially in the law [relating to] the bailees, but regarding buying and selling, and overcharging and admitting to part of the claim, , in all of these, we hold that something about to be cut/harvested is like it was cut already, and such is the Halakha.",
                "עד הזיז (an attachment, a projection from the door frame serving as a shed over the entrance) – beam of a upper story that projects from the house, and the general principle of the matter, is that he is always not liable for an oath according to the Torah until he makes a claim against him with something specifying a concrete measure, or a weight or a measure, and he admits to him part of his measure or part of the weight or part of the number."
            ],
            [
                "המלוה את חבירו על משכון – he becomes upon it a paid bailee, and there is no difference if he took a pledge at the time of his loan, nr whether he took a pledge not at the time of his loan. But if he lost [it] or it was stolen, and the pledge was corresponding to the lien, his pledge is expended for his debt, and they don’t have anything against each other. But if the lien is greater [in value] than the pledge, the debtor/borrower pays the creditor what the debt was of greater worth. But if the pledge was greater [in value] than the lien, the creditor pays the debtor/borrower. But if it was lost by accident where a paid bailee is exempt, the lender is also exempt, and he takes an oath that through this accident [the object lent] was lost, and he collects the entire lien.",
                "שקל – one half a Sela.",
                "לא כי – it was not like this.",
                "אלא סלע הלויתני עליו ושלשה דינרים היה כו' – for he admitted part of the claim, for the Sela is worth four Denarim. And lince the borrower/debtor is liable to take an oath on how much his pledge was worth, and the creditor/lender is liable to take an oath concerning the pledge that is not in his possession, and even though he pays its value because we suspect that his eye was upon it, the Jewish Court has the creditor take an oath first that the pledge is not in his possession/domain, and afterwards it has the borrower/debtor take an oath how much it was worth, lest the borrower take an other first and he is not exact as to its appraisement/estimated value and the creditor produces the pledge which will make him ineligible for testimony and for an oath. But what we teach in the concluding clause [of the Mishnah]: “And upon whom is the oath imposed,” it is stated, upon whom is the oath first imposed?",
                "מי שהפקדון אצלו – the creditor/lender with whom the pledge was with takes an oath that the pledge was not in his possession/in his domain."
            ]
        ],
        [
            [
                "כל הנשבעין. נשבעין ולא משלמין – The Torah did not institute for the person making a claim to take an oath and to take/regain their due, but rather for the one investigated that he takes an oath and does not pay, as it is written (Exodus 22:10): “[an oath before the LORD shall decide between the two of them that one has not laid hands on the property of the other;] the owner must acquiesce, and no restitution shall be made.” Whomever that it is upon him to pay is the one who must take an oath.",
                "ואלו נשבעין ונוטלין – that the Sages established for them to take an oath and to regain their due. And all of this is explained further on in our Mishnah.",
                "השכיר – The Sages established for him to take an oath and to take his due because the owner of the house/employer is preoccupied with all of his workers and does not remember. And these words are when he makes a claim at the present time. The hired day laborer (see Tractate Bava Metzia, Chapter 9, Mishnah 12) his present time is all day long that is after him , but if they made a claim against him after his time, the owner of the house takes an equitable oath (which is applied if one is sued for a debt, denies the later entirely (כופר הכל), in contradistinction to the legal oath which is required when the defendant admits a part of the time ( מודה במקצת) . It being presumed that nobody will go to the law unless he has a claim, it is a matter of equity to put the opponent to an oath, to which he may in return put the claimant (see Talmud Shevuot 40b) – that he paid him and departed, but if he had been hired without witnesses being present, also, the hired person cannot take an oath and take his due because he (i.e., the owner of the house/employer) can say to him: “I never hired you.” He also can say to him: “I hired you and gave you your wages.”",
                "והוא אומר נתתי – but he said to him: “I stipulated/agreed upon two [Zuz] and he (i.e., the employer) says, “I stipulated for you only one (see Talmud Shevuot 45b). The owner takes the oath of the Torah that it is according to his words, and he only gives him one."
            ],
            [
                "למשכנו שלא ברשות – as in the case where witnesses saw that he entered into the house of his fellow, and there was nothing in his hand and he left from there with utensils inserted under his arms.",
                "הרי זה נשבע ונוטל – for the words are proven that the witnesses testify that he had a pledge taken without permission,. And what he was carrying was something where one is believed to be wealthy. But if he was carrying a silver cup, or something like it, it is a matter that they would not have believed him to be wealthy. Is it not within his powers to take an oath and take his rightful due? But rather, the person whom the claim is made against should take an oath and be exempt."
            ],
            [
                "הרי זה נשבע ונוטל – and specifically when the wound is in a place where it is possible that he wounded himself, and because of this, it requires an oath. But if it is in a place where he cannot wound himself, and it is recognized that others did it to him, as for example, when a bite occurred to him on his back, and there is no one else there, for he is able to say, perhaps another [person] did it, he takes [his compensation] without an oath [being administered]."
            ],
            [
                "שבועת שוא – needless to say/not only t an oath of testimony and an oath of deposit which have in them the denial of money which is bad/evil for Heaven (k.e., God) and for humanity, but even an oath taken in vain, which is only bad regarding Heaven, for corresponding to it, he takes an oath and takes [his payment]. But the oath on a statement (i.e., taken by a person to reinforce a promise or an obligation or to confirm the veracity of a story) is not taught, for the oath on a statement is regarding the future, as for example, “I will eat or I won’t eat,” one could say that when he took the oath, he took that oath truthfully, for it was his intention to fulfill it, and even though his inclination compelled him and he transgressed upon it, he is not suspected upon this through the oath. But [an oath] of statement of the past [action], “I ate, I ate,” it is similar to an oath taken in vain, for he pronounced a false oath form his lips.",
                "היה אחד מהן משחק בקוביא – {The Mishnah] taught those who are ineligible from the Torah and also taught those who are ineligible according to the Rabbis (see Tractate Rosh Hashanah, Chapter 1, Mishnah 8 and Tractate Sanhedrin, Chapter 3, Mishnah 3, for similar listings to that found in our Mishnah).",
                "ומפריחי יונים – there are those who interpret, if your dove will come before my dove, I will give you such-and-such, which is equivalent to gambling, and there are those who explain that he raises a knowledgeable pigeon who to bring pigeons to the house of its owner, and there with these theft because of the ways of peace.",
                "וסוחרי שביעית – they do business with Seventh-year produce, and the Torah stated (Leviticus 25:6): “[But you may] eat [whatever the land during its sabbath will produce,” but not for business.",
                "חזרה שבועה למקומה – There are those who interpret in the Gemara (Tractate Shevuot 47a) that it returned to Sinai, to the oath at Mount Sinai that the Holy One, Blessed be He caused the Isralites to swear that they would not steal , and he He will collect from the indemnity the money for his fellow, but the Jewish court has no need neither for the an oath nor for collection. But there are those who interpret that the oath returned to the one liable for it, on that he admitted to part, and since he cannot take an oath, he is suspect and he must pay."
            ],
            [
                "שניהם נשבעים ונוטלין מבעל הבית (i.e., the storekeeper and the workers) – the storekeeper said to hi, the workers are not believable to me with an oath; you declare them as trustworthy for you did not say to me with witnesses, “give to them.” And similarly, the workers say to him: “The storekeeper is not believable to us with an oath.” But when both (i.e., the storekeeper and the workers) take an oath frand take from the owner of the house, they take an oath, one in the presence of the other, that just as that the storekeeper is frightened from the workers or the workers [are frightened] from the storekeeper.",
                "אלו ואלו באין לידי שבועת שוא – for perforce, one of them takes a false oath and it is found that the name of Heaven is profaned. But rather, both of these (i.e., the storekeeper and the workers) take their money without an oath. But the Halakha is not according to Ben Nanos."
            ],
            [
                "ולא נתן לו – and the produce are piled up and placed in the public domain and are not held in possession either by he storekeeper nor by the house owner.",
                "ונתתו באנפליא (in the merchant’s money chest into which receipts are dropped through a slit) – a casing/sheath that is made for money.",
                "ישבע בעל הבית – an oath like that of the Torah, and he will take [the money], for since the storekeeper admits that he sold , and the produce are outside of his store, the owner of the house takes an oath and takes it.",
                "רמק לו נתתים לך. והלכתן לתוך ביתך – and this piled up produce that is left [in the public domain] are mine, that I gave here to sell them, and the other claims, they are the produce that you sold me for a Denar. Since the purchaser admits to the transaction/sale and the storekeeper denies that he sold those [particular produce], the storekeeper takes an oath aan other like that of the Torah and takes [the money].",
                "רבי יהודה אומר וכו' – Rabbi Yehuda is disputing the concluding clause [of the Mishnah], and stated, whether this or whether that, the owner of the house takes an oath and takes [his produce]. For since the produce are outside of the store, they are as if the produce are in the hands of the owner of the house, and whomever has the produce in hand – his hand is on top/has the advantage and he takes an oath and takes [them].",
                "אמר לשולחני וכו' – The Tanna/teacher [of the Mishnah] comes to tell us that the dispute of Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis, whether with regard to the money of the money changer, or with regard to produce of the storekeeper, for if [the Mishnah] had taught [only] the dispute regarding the storekeeper, , I would state that the Rabbis spoke of the produce, and when he (i.e., the storekeeper) said to him (i.e., the purchaser, the house owner), “I gave them to you, and you took them into your house,” the storekeeper should take an oath and take [his money], because the storekeeper customarily gives the produce prior to taking the Denar, but the money changer does not customarily give the Issarim prior to taking the Denar, I would say that he agrees with Rabbi Yehudah, that the house owner always takes an oath and takes [his produce]. And if it was said with this, it was with this that Rabbi Yehuda stated it, for always the house owner takes an oath and takes [his produce], because the money changer does not customarily hand over Issarim until he takes the Denar. But the storekeeper, who customarily gives the produce prior to his taking the Money, I would say that he agrees with the Rabbis. Both [opinions] are necessary. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yehuda."
            ],
            [
                "הפוגמת כתובתה – she produces the document of her Ketubah/marriage contract and it admits that it has been partially received.",
                "לא תפרע אלא בשבועה – if the husband claims that she received all of it.",
                "עד אחד אומר וכו'. ומנסכים משועבדים ומנכסי היתומים כו'. ונפרעת שלא בפניו – all of this is as it is exists., just as not one of these is collected other than through an oath, thus orphans do not collect other than through an oath. Orphans who collect from the orphans do not collect other than through an oath. But our Mishnah is speaking of a case where the orphans that come to collect from them state: “Se don’t know if our father paid off this lien or not,” but if they claimed: “Our father told us that he did not borrow these money and did not ever obligate himself in this lien, the orphans who produce a lien document on these orphans collect from them without an oath, for anyone who says, “I did not borrow” is like someone who says I did not pay the debt, and they are not able to contradict the witnesses who testify that their father borrowed these funds. And they did not teach that through an oath, at least, the orphans took from orphans, but rather that the lender/creditor died during the life of the borrower/debtor, but if the debtor/borrower died during the life of the borrower, the lender was already liable to take an oath to the children of the borrower that nothing had been received, that he had collected from the orphans even with a document that requires an oath, for a person does not bequeath money that he is liable for an oath to his children, for the children are not able to take an oath that their father had obligated himself to. And even though this is the law, if a judge decides that the orphans should take an oath that father did not give us instructions nor pay back from the monies that the other orphans through this oath. What is done is done.",
                "שלא פקדנו אבא – at the time of [his] death.",
                "ושלא אמר לנו [that he did not tell us anything] prior to this, that this document was paid off.",
                "הרי זה נשבע – that he did not find among his father’s documents that this document was paid off. And such is the Halakha.",
                "רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר – And the Halakha is according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel [that at the time of death, the document had not been paid off, the son may collect the debt without taking an oath]."
            ],
            [
                "שלא בטענה – without an evident/sure claim, but rather a possible [alternative] claim, for he claims that perhaps you withheld from me. But because of of these teach a permitted action for themselves because they were busy with property, because of this, the Rabbis placed an oath upon them.",
                "והאפוטרופסים – that were in engaged in the money of a person to earn and to spend and to engage in business. But the guardian/administrator of orphans, if the Jewish court appointed him, he does not take an oath.",
                "והאשה הנושאת ונותנת בתוך הבית – her husband placed her as a storekeeper or administrator/guardian over his possessions.",
                "ובן בית – one of the brothers who was engaged with property when their father died.",
                "חלקו – but they did not have him take an oath at the time of the division [of property].",
                "נתגלגלה לו שבועה – with them afterwards. They impose nupon him als this [oath] upon him, in the same manner that impose upon the oath of the Torah and with an oath that is similar to that of the Torah; so they impose upon him the oath of inducement.",
                "והשביעית משמטת את השבועה – this not referring to the oath of partners, for the Seventh Year does not release partners nor its oath, but rather, from a borrower/debtor and its oath [the Seventh Year] releases."
            ]
        ],
        [
            [
                "ארבעה שומרים הם – [and their laws are three].",
                "נושא שכר – bailee with payment",
                "נשבע על הכל – that he was not negligent.",
                "משלם על הכל – all those that we taught in our Mishnah, taken captive, and/or injured and/or who died and/or was something stolen and/or lost. But if it (i.e., the animal) had died on account of the labor [done], he does not pay, because this cannot be established as a measure of the borrowing. But this Mishnah is explained in [Bava Metzia, Chapter 7] “One who Hires Workers”/”HaSokher Et HaPoalim.”"
            ],
            [
                "ואמר אמן פטור – for if he had admitted it, he would not pay anything; it is found there is no denial of money [owed], and even though he had taken a false oath, the Torah did not obligate him a sacrifice for the oath other than where he denied money [owed]. Similarly, the judge cannot make him take an oath other than on a matter that if he admitted, he would be liable to pay money."
            ],
            [
                "היכן שורי – He (i.e., the owner) said to the unpaid bailee, “where is my ox?” He said to him: “It was lost.”",
                "משביעך אני ואמר אמן והעדים מעידים אותו שאכלו משלם את הקרן – [he pays the principle] but not the double-payment, but if he admitted it on his own prior to the witnesses coming, he would pay the principle plus one-fifth and a make a guilt-offering, like the law of the oath of a deposit, which does not come until he admits and repents from his wickedness and come to be forgiven/expiated.",
                "אמר ליה נגנב משביעך אני וכו' – since an unpaid bailee who exempts himself with the claim of the thief and takes an oath and witnesses came, he pays double, as it is written (Exodus 22:7): “If the thief is not caught, [the owner of the house shall depose before God that he has not laid hands on the other’s property].” “if the thief was not caught” – like as he said, but that he himself had stolen it, he should pay double. But if he came to exempt himself with the claim that it was lost, he does not pay double.",
                "הודה מעצמו משלם קרן וחומש ואשם – but not the double payment, for a person who admits to a fine is exempt."
            ],
            [
                "אמר לאחד מן השוק – here we do not have the reading “I impose an oath upon you.” Because without an oath, he would be liable for double payment. For this one is an actual thief, and regarding a thief, it is written (Exodus 22:6): “[if the thief is caught,] he shall pay double,” and he does not need an oath.",
                "עדים שממשמשין ובאין – it is teaching us something remarkable – for even though on account of fright of the witnesses, he admits, even so, the admission is a benefit and he is exempted from the double payment. And since there is no double payment, he is exempt even from the slaughtering that he denied that and the witnesses came that he had stolen, and slaughtered or sold. For wherever there is no double payment, there is no liability for slaughtering, for the All-Merciful mentioned “four-fold payment or five-fold payment” (see Exodus 21:37: “When a man steals an ox or a sheep, and slaughters it or sells it, he shall pay five oxen for the ox, and four sheep for the sheep.”), and not “three-fold payment for four-fold payment,” and because there is not double-payment, less than this is one."
            ],
            [
                "אמר לשואל וכו' פטור – for behold even when he was sworn to a lie, he obligated himself in payments and this oath is not a denial of money [owed]."
            ],
            [
                "חייב – for behold, he denied the money [owed] , for had he admitted, he would be make himself liable.",
                "מת והוא נשבר וכו' פטור – for it had admitted [to it], he would not pay. And similar, if [he said] that it had been stolen but [in reality] he lost it, or if [he said that] he lost it [but in reality] it had been stolen, he is exempt, for behold he changed from one liability to another and didn’t deny [that he owed] money in this oath.",
                "אמר לו אבד או נגנב והוא שמת או נשבה וכו' פטור – for behold, he changed from something exempt to a liability and he lost out in his oath."
            ]
        ]
    ],
    "versions": [
        [
            "Bartenura on Mishnah, trans. by Rabbi Robert Alpert, 2020",
            "sefaria.org"
        ]
    ],
    "heTitle": "ברטנורא על משנה שבועות",
    "categories": [
        "Mishnah",
        "Rishonim on Mishnah",
        "Bartenura",
        "Seder Nezikin"
    ],
    "sectionNames": [
        "Chapter",
        "Mishnah",
        "Comment"
    ]
}