POINT BY POINT OUTLINE
prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
1) THE PUNISHMENT FOR FALSE OATHS
(a) (Beraisa): Even Shevu'as ha'Dayanim may be said in any language that the defendant understands;
(b) We tell him that the world shook when Hash-m said on Sinai "Lo Sisa Es Shem Hash-m la'Shav."
(c) Regarding all other transgressions, it says "v'Nakeh". Regarding swearing falsely, it says "Lo Yenake";
(d) Regarding all other transgressions, Hash-m punishes (only) the sinner. Regarding swearing falsely, He punishes his family as well - "Al Titen Es Picha Lachati Es Besarecha";
1. "Besarecha" refers to his family.
(e) Regarding all other transgressions, Hash-m punishes the sinner. Regarding swearing falsely, He punishes the entire world - "Alo v'Chachesh... (Al Ken Te'eval ha'Aretz v'Umlal Kol Yoshev Bah." The Gra deletes the following suggestion and rejection from the text.)
1. Suggestion: Perhaps that is only for doing all the transgressions in that verse!
2. Rejection: "Mipnei Alah Avlah ha'Aretz."
(f) Regarding all other transgressions, if he has merits, his punishment is suspended for two or three generations. For swearing falsely, he is punished immediately - "Hotzeisi'ah... u'Ba'ah El Beis ha'Ganav v'El Beis ha'Nishba bi'Shmi la'Shaker v'Laneh b'Soch Beiso v'Chilato v'Es Etzav v'Es Avanav";
1. "Hotzeisi'ah (I took out a scroll of punishments awaiting the following people)" - immediately. "U'Ba'ah El Beis ha'Ganav" is one who is Gonev Da'as (deceives). He falsely claims money in order to force people to swear;
2. "V'El Beis ha'Nishba bi'Shmi la'Shaker" is one who swears falsely. "... V'Chilato v'Es Etzav v'Es Avanav" - water and fire do not wear away the wood and rocks (of his house), but false oaths do.
(g) If the defendant says 'I will (pay and) not swear', we immediately make him leave Beis Din, so he cannot retract (Rashi; R. Tam - so he will be ashamed to retract later)
(h) If he says 'I will swear', all present say "Suru Na me'Al Ohalei ha'Anashim ha'Rsha'im ha'Eleh";
1. When we administer the oath, we tell him 'you do not swear according to your own Da'as (intent), rather, according to Da'as Hash-m and of Beis Din.'
2. We find that Moshe forced Bnei Yisrael to swear this way. He said 'I do not make you swear according to your Da'as, rather according to Hash-m's Da'as and my Da'as - "v'Lo Itechem Levadechem";
i. "Asher Yeshno Po ha'Yom" refers to those who stood on Har Sinai. "Asher Einenu Po Imanu ha'Yom" refers to future generations and those who will convert later;
ii. This applies to Mitzvos received on Har Sinai (i.e. mid'Oraisa). We learn Mitzvos (mid'Rabanan) that will be given later, such as reading Megilas Esther, from "Kiymu v'Kibelu" - they fulfilled what they already accepted (i.e. whatever Mitzvos Chachamim will enact). (end of Beraisa)
(i) Question: The Beraisa said 'even Shevu'as ha'Dayanim may be said in any language.' What does this mean?
(j) Answer: It is like the other things listed in the following Mishnah;
1. (Mishnah): The following may be said in any language: the Parshah of Sotah (giving her to drink), the declaration of (having properly given) Ma'aseros, Kri'as Shema, prayer, Birkas ha'Mazon, Shevu'as ha'Edus, and Shevu'as ha'Pikadon.
2. The Beraisa teaches that also Shevu'as ha'Dayanim may be said in any language.
(k) (Beraisa): We tell him that the world shook when Hash-m said on Sinai "Lo Sisa Es Shem Hash-m la'Shav."
(l) Question: Why is this?
1. Suggestion: It is because it was said on Sinai.
2. Rejection: All ten utterances were said on Sinai!
(m) Answer #1: Rather, it is because it is stringent.
(n) Objection (Beraisa): Light transgressions are a Mitzvas Aseh or Lav, except for "Lo Sisa." Severe transgressions are those punishable by Kares or Misah (through Beis Din), and "Lo Sisa." (This shows that it is no more stringent than transgressions of Kares or Misah!)
(o) Answer #2 (continuation of the Beraisa): Regarding all other transgressions, it says "v'Nakeh." Regarding swearing falsely, it says "Lo Yenake."
1. Question: "Lo Yenake" is written regarding all transgressions (after the 13 Midos of Hash-m)!
2. Answer: That is (if he did not repent), like R. Elazar taught;
i. (Beraisa - R. Elazar) Question: How can it say both "Lo Yenake" and "Yenakeh"?
ii. Answer: Hash-m cleanses one who repents, but not one who does not repent.
3. Regarding false oaths, Hash-m does not cleanse (without punishments) even if he repents.
2) WHO IS PUNISHED?
(a) (Beraisa): Regarding all other transgressions, Hash-m punishes the sinner. Regarding swearing falsely, He punishes also his family.
(b) Question: There are other transgressions for which Hash-m also punishes his family (such as giving children over to Molech) - "v'Samti Ani Es Panai ba'Ish ha'Hu uv'Mishpachto"!'
1. (Beraisa - R. Shimon) Question: Why is his family punished for his sin?
2. Answer (R. Shimon): If there is a tax collector (who takes more than is proper) or robber in a family, they are all guilty of theft, for they cover up for him.
(c) Answer: Regarding other transgressions, the family is not punished as harshly as the sinner (even if they could have protested). Regarding false oaths, the family gets the same punishment.
1. (Beraisa - Rebbi) Suggestion: Since it says "v'Samti Ani Es Panai... (uv'Mishpachto)", perhaps the entire family gets Kares!
2. Rejection: "V'Hichrati Oso" - only the one who handed over his children to Molech gets Kares.
(d) (Beraisa): Regarding all other transgressions, Hash-m punishes the sinner. Regarding swearing falsely, He punishes the entire world.
(e) Question: Also for other transgressions, Hash-m punishes the entire world!
1. "V'Chashlu Ish b'Achiv" - a man will stumble (be punished for) the sin of his brother. This teaches that every Yisrael is responsible for every Yisrael!
(f) Answer: That is only if they could have protested, but did not.
(g) Question: What is the difference between Resha'im (those who could have protested, but did not) of his family and evil strangers, and between Tzadikim (those who could not have protested) of his family and righteous strangers?
(h) Answer: Regarding all other transgressions, the sinner gets his punishment, Resha'im of his family get a (lighter but) severe punishment, evil strangers get a light punishment, and Tzadikim are not punished at all;
1. Regarding false oaths, the sinner and Resha'im of his family get the same punishment, evil strangers get a severe punishment, and Tzadikim are punished lightly.
(i) (Beraisa): If the defendant says 'I will (pay and) not swear', we immediately make him leave Beis Din;
1. If he says 'I will swear', all present say "Suru Na me'Al Ohalei ha'Anashim ha'Rsha'im ha'Eleh."
(j) Question: This implies that both are evil. Only one will (possibly) swear falsely!
(k) Answer (Beraisa - R. Shimon ben Tarfon): "Shevu'as Hash-m Tihyeh Bein Shneihem" - they are both punished for the oath (one who deposits with a swindler helps cause desecration of Hash-m's name).
(l) (Beraisa): When we administer the oath, we tell him 'you do not swear according to your own Da'as, rather according to that of Hash-m and Beis Din.'
(m) Question: Why must we say this?
(n) Answer: We are concerned for cases like the oath in front of Rava. (A man hid money in a stick, asked his creditor to hold the stick, and swore 'I gave you your money.' This was literally true, but not according to Beis Din's understanding.)
3) THE ADMISSION AND DENIAL
(a) (Mishnah): The claim must be at least two (Ma'os of) Kesef (and the admission is a Perutah).
(b) (Rav): This means that the defendant must deny a claim of two Ma'os.
(c) (Shmuel): The entire claim must be at least two Ma'os. It suffices that he denies at least a Perutah and admits to at least a Perutah.
(d) (Rava): Our Mishnah supports Rav, but the verses support Shmuel.
(e) According to Rav, the Mishnah is fine. It teaches the amount of denial (two Ma'os) and admission (a Perutah);
1. According to Shmuel, it omits teaching the amount of denial (a Perutah)!
(f) The verses support Shmuel as follows:
1. "Ki Yiten... Kesef Oh Kelim" - just like Kelim (plural) implies two, also Kesef;
2. Just like Kesef is important, also (a claim of) any (two) important things (our text, Rashi; Tosfos - of important Kelim, i.e. each is worth at least a Perutah) can obligate an oath.
3. "(He will say) Ki Hu Zeh" - (the defendant says) 'of your entire claim (of two Ma'os) this is all I owe!'
(g) Defense of Rav: This teaches that he must partially admit to the claim.
1. Shmuel holds that since "Ki" and "Zeh" are both extra, we learn both (the oath comes for such a claim, and that he must partially admit to the claim).
2. Rav learns that (1) he must partially admit to the claim, and (2) the admission must be like the claim.
(h) Question (against Rav): If he partially admits to a claim of two Ma'os, he must deny less than two Ma'os!
(i) Answer: The verse teaches that the denial must be at least two Ma'os.
1. Support: If not, it should have said only "Kelim". We would have known that also Kesef must be two;
2. "Kesef" is extra to teach that the denial itself must be two Ma'os.
(j) Rejection (Shmuel): Had it said only "Kelim", we would have thought that a claim of any two things suffices, even if they are not important;
1. "Kesef" is needed to teach that they must be important.
(k) Question (against Shmuel - Mishnah): If Reuven claimed two Ma'os of Kesef, and Shimon admitted that he owes a Perutah, Shimon is exempt.
1. Suggestion: He is exempt because the denial is less than two Ma'os!
(l) Answer: No. The claim was not the value of two Ma'os, rather, two Ma'os specifically of silver (e.g. a deposit or theft);
1. He is exempt because the admission was (a Perutah, a copper coin, which is) not like what was claimed (silver coins).
(m) Question (Mishnah): If Reuven claimed two Ma'os of Kesef and a Perutah, and Shimon admitted that he owes a Perutah, he must (pay the Perutah and) swear;
1. We understand if the claim was the value of two Ma'os and a Perutah, for then the admission and denial are similar (both are value);
2. However, if the claim was specifically two silver Ma'os and a Perutah, the admission (a Perutah) is unlike the denial (silver Ma'os)!
(n) Answer: This is not difficult for Shmuel. Rav Nachman cited Shmuel to say that if two different things are claimed and he admits to one of them, he must swear!
(o) Support (for Shmuel - Seifa): If Reuven claimed a liter of gold, and Shimon admitted that he owes a liter of silver, Shimon is exempt;
1. We understand why he is exempt if the claim was specifically a liter of gold. If so, the admission was unlike the claim.
2. However, if the claim was the value of a liter of gold, he admitted to part of the claim (and also denied more than two Ma'os)!
3. Just like the Seifa must refer to the metal itself (not the value), also the beginning!
(p) Suggestion: This refutes Rav! (The Mishnah implies that if the denial was like the claim, he would be liable to swear, even though the denial is less than two Ma'os.)
(q) Rejection: Rav explains that almost the entire Mishnah refers to claims of value;
1. The only exception is a liter of gold. (Because it is not a currency, people do not normally use it for a unit of value.)