Pre-emptive Shevuat Edut

Shevuot (4:9) | Yisrael Bankier | 15 days ago

The fourth perek of Shevuot discusses shevuot edut. The case is where witnesses, when asked to testify, swear falsely that they do not know anything about the case. More specifically we learnt that the testimony must have a financial consequence, and that the denial must be in front of beit din. In such cases, if they later admit to the knowledge, they would be liable to bring a korban oleh ve'yored.

Another law we learnt (4:9) related to one that pre-empted and made people swear that if they ever knew of any testimony in the future that they would testify. If they later witnessed a financial matter and then denied any knowledge, they would be exempt. The Bartenura explains that this is because when the Torah describes shevuot edut it teaches that the knowledge must precede the shevuot and not the other way around as in this case.

The Tosfot R' Akiva Eiger notes that the Rambam (9:8) adds that the individuals in this case responded amen to the request. That being the case, he asks that by responding amen, even if it was not a shevuot edut, they nonetheless swore to testify. It should then be like any other shevuot to do something -- a shevuat bitui -- also liable to a korban. Yet the Mishnah teaches that they are exempt.

The Tosfot R' Akiva Eiger continues, that were it not for the Rambam's explanation, he would have explained that the individuals did not respond amen. It was only later, once they were asked to testify, the person said, "do you remember that I made you swear, so now come and testify". If they say that they do not know anything, they would be exempt because the shevuah preceded the knowledge.

The Tifferet Yerushalaim addresses both these concerns. Firstly, he notes that the Rambam teaches that the shevuat edut applies whether or not the shevuah was made in front of beit din, whether they articulated the shevuah or whether they were prompted and responded amen. If however, they were in front of beit din and asked to swear that they do not know anything, if they deny any knowledge, even if they did not respond amen, then it would be considered a shevuat edut. This then explains why the Rambam added that in our case the individuals responded amen. Since they were not in front of Beit Din or in the context that we demand a specific testimony, they would need to respond amen in order that it would considered as if they made a shevuah.

The Tifferet Yerushalaim also addresses the second point, that they should still be liable to a shevuat bitui. He explains that according to the Rambam they would be liable for violating the shevuat bitui. Indeed, the Rambam (9:14) maintains that in all the cases in our perek where the Mishnah taught that they would not be liable to a shevuot edut, e.g. where the case did not have monetary consequence, they would be liable to a shevuat bitui.¹ The Tifferet Yerushalaim adds that that is the point of the Mishnah. Even though what occurred would constitute a genuine shevuah, since it preceded the knowledge of any testimony, they would not be liable to a shevuat edut.

Interestingly the Rashash however answers this questions by explaining that even if they responded amen it would not be considered a shevuat bitui. That is because it would be equivalent to making a shevuah to fulfil a mitzvah, which we learnt (3:6) would not work².

¹ Note also that when the Rambam (9:8) brings the law related to this Mishnah he does not only write that they are exempt, but rather that they are exempt from shevuat edut.

² Not however that while indeed he would be exempt from a shevuot bitui and not liable to a korban, the Rambam (5:14) rules that he would be liable to lashes for a shevuot shav.

Download