THERE MUST BE A MONETARY CLAIM (cont.)
Answer #4 (R. Shimon): A Korban is brought for (a false) Shevu'as ha'Edus, just like for Shevu'as ha'Pikadon;
Just like Shevu'as ha'Pikadon is when there is a claim of money, also Shevu'as ha'Edus.
Suggestion: A Kal va'Chomer should teach this! Shevu'as ha'Pikadon applies equally to men and women, to relatives and strangers, valid and invalid witnesses, he is liable for every false oath, in Beis Din or outside, yet it only applies when money was claimed;
Shevu'as ha'Edus only applies to men, (who are) strangers and valid witnesses, and he is liable only for one false oath if it was in Beis Din. All the more so it applies only when money was claimed!
Rejection: We can refute the Kal va'Chomer, for Shevu'as ha'Pikadon has leniencies (based on what is explicit in the Parshah, like we will explain later). One is liable only if he swore himself, and he was Shogeg, whereas one is liable for Shevu'as ha'Edus even if the oath was imposed on him, and even if he was Mezid!
Rather, we learn from (Shevu'as ha'Pikadon from) a Gezerah Shavah "Secheta-Secheta."
Question (against R. Eliezer - Rabah bar Ula): The word 'Oh' is repeated also in the Parshah of Shevu'as Bituy, which involves an oath and does not involve a Kohen, and it applies even when there is no claim of money!
Answer #1: It is preferable to learn from Shevu'as ha'Pikadon, for also in that Parshah it says "Secheta."
Objection: It is preferable to learn from Shevu'as Bituy, for which a Chatas is brought (like Shevu'as ha'Edus, but an Asham is brought for Shevu'as ha'Pikadon)!
Answer #2: Rather, we learn from Shevu'as ha'Pikadon, for this resembles Shevu'as ha'Edus in the following ways: in both Parshiyos it says "Secheta", one is liable even for Mezid, they come through claim and denial, and the oaths apply only to what already happened,
Question: We should learn from Shevu'as Bituy, which resembles Shevu'as ha'Edus in these respects: a Chatas is brought for them, the Korban is an Oleh v'Yored, and they do not obligate adding a Chomesh (a quarter of the principal; one who takes a false Shevu'as ha'Pikadon must add a Chomesh)!
Answer: There are more similarities to Shevu'as ha'Pikadon.
(Beraisa - R. Akiva): "Ki Yesham l'Achas me'Eleh" - for some of these oaths he is liable, but not for others;
He is liable for those with a claim of money, and exempt for others.
Question: Perhaps we should learn oppositely (to exempt only for monetary claims)!
Answer: R. Akiva also learns from the repetition of "Oh" in the Parshiyos of Shevu'as ha'Edus and Shevu'as ha'Pikadon, like R. Eliezer.
Question: What is the difference (in Halachah) between R. Eliezer and R. Akiva?
Answer #1: They argue about witnesses about land. R. Eliezer obligates them (he holds that land can be stolen, and Shevu'as ha'Pikadon and Shevu'as ha'Edus apply to land), R. Akiva exempts (he learns from "me'Eleh").
Question: According to R. Yochanan, who says that even R. Eliezer exempts witnesses about land, what do they argue about?
Answer #2: They argue about witnesses about a fine. R. Eliezer obligates them, and R. Akiva exempts (from "me'Eleh").
WITNESSES WHO DID NOT SEE OR KNOW
(Beraisa - R. Yosi ha'Galili): "V'Hu Ed Oh Ro'oh Oh Yoda" discusses (monetary) testimony, which is possible through seeing (without understanding) or knowing (without seeing).
Suggestion (Rav Papa): R. Yosi ha'Galili argues with R. Acha.
(Beraisa - R. Acha): If a dead camel was found near a camel that was kicking (or mating), surely, the latter killed it.
If R. Yosi held like R. Acha, he would find testimony of knowing without seeing (the action) also in capital cases, like the case that R. Shimon ben Shetach saw!
(Beraisa - R. Shimon ben Shetach): I saw Reuven chase Levi into a ruin. I ran after him, and saw Levi dying and blood dripping from a knife in Reuven's hand.
R. Shimon ben Shetach: Surely you killed him, but I cannot convict you - "Al Pi Shnayim Edim... Yumas ha'Mes." I must leave it for Hash-m to punish you.
Before they left, a snake bit and killed Reuven.
Rejection (Abaye): R. Yosi ha'Galili can agree with R. Acha;
In capital cases, even though we find testimony of knowing without seeing, we do not find testimony of seeing without knowing;
It does not suffice to say 'we saw Reuven kill this man' unless they know that the victim was a Yisrael and was not a Treifah (he did not already have a mortal injury).
Inference: R. Yosi ha'Galili must hold that Shevu'as ha'Edus does not apply to fines.
In fines, even if we find testimony of knowing without seeing, we do not find testimony of seeing without knowing;
It does not suffice to say 'we saw Reuven entice or rape this girl' unless they know that she was a Bas Yisrael and was a virgin.
Question (Rav Yehudah): If Shimon told Levi 'I gave 100 Zuz to you in front of Ploni and Almoni', and Ploni and Almoni saw this from outside, what is the law?
Answer (Rav Hamnuna): In either case, this is simple!
If Levi denied ever getting the money, (when Ploni and Almoni testify) he is established to be a liar (and he is not believed to say that the money was a gift or payment of a loan. Shimon is believed to say that it was a loan);
If Levi says 'yes. You paid me 100 Zuz that you owed me', the testimony does not obligate him at all.
Version #1 (Reish Lakish): If Reuven told Yehudah 'I gave 100 Zuz to you next to this pillar', and Yehudah said 'I did not pass by this pillar,' and witnesses testified that Yehudah once urinated by the pillar, Yehudah is established to be a liar (he must pay Reuven).
Objection (Rav Nachman): Yehudah did not say that he never passed by the pillar. Rather, he did not receive money by it!
(Rav Nachman): If Reuven told Yehudah 'I gave 100 Zuz to you next to this pillar', and Yehudah said 'I never passed by this pillar,' and witnesses testified that Yehudah once urinated by the pillar, Yehudah is established to be a liar.
Objection (Rava): Since Yehudah never thought that it was relevant if he was by the pillar, he never put it to his mind, so it is reasonable that he does not remember that he was once there.
DERIVING LAWS OF SHEVU'AS HA'PIKADON FROM SHEVU'AS HA'EDUS
(Beraisa - R. Shimon): A Korban is brought for (a false) Shevu'as ha'Edus, just like for Shevu'as ha'Pikadon...
In Eretz Yisrael Rabanan laughed at what R. Shimon said.
Question: What is funny about it?
Answer #1: He said that Shevu'as ha'Pikadon has leniencies, i.e. one is not liable if the oath was imposed on him, or if he was Mezid, but he is liable for Shevu'as ha'Edus whether he swore himself or if the oath was imposed on him, and whether he was Mezid or Shogeg;
We learned that Shevu'as ha'Edus applies when he swears himself only from Shevu'as ha'Pikadon (Rashi - from a Gezerah Shavah "Secheta-Secheta"; Tosfos - from a 'Mah Matzinu (precedent)). Likewise, we should learn Shevu'as ha'Pikadon from Shevu'as ha'Edus, that it applies when the oath was imposed on him!
Rejection: That is no reason to laugh. Perhaps R. Shimon does not learn Shevu'as ha'Edus (when he swears himself) from Shevu'as ha'Pikadon, rather from a Kal va'Chomer;
The Torah obligates Shevu'as ha'Edus when the oath was imposed on him, and all the more so when he swears himself!
Answer #2: Rather, they laughed because he said that Shevu'as ha'Pikadon has the leniency that he is not liable if he was Mezid, but Shevu'as ha'Edus is even if he was Mezid;
Presumably, we learn liability for Shevu'as ha'Edus b'Mezid because it does not say "v'Nelam". Also in the Parshah of Shevu'as ha'Pikadon it does not say "v'Nelam"!
Rejection (Rav Huna): That is no reason to laugh. Perhaps R. Shimon learns Shevu'as ha'Pikadon from Me'ilah, to exempt Mezid!
Answer #3: They laughed because he should learn from Shevu'as ha'Edus rather than from Me'ilah.
Question: That is no reason to laugh. It is better to learn from (Rashi - a Mah Matzinu; Rashba - a Gezerah Shavah) from Me'ilah, for 'Me'ilah' is written also regarding Shevu'as ha'Pikadon.
Answer: No, it is better to learn from Shevu'as ha'Edus, in which it says 'Secheta.'
Question: We should learn from Me'ilah, which resembles Shevu'as ha'Pikadon in these respects: in both it says 'Me'ilah', they apply to everyone, one is liable for benefiting from his transgression, one brings a Korban Asham for them, it is the same for rich or poor people, and one adds a Chomesh to the amount he benefited.
Answer: We rather learn from Shevu'as ha'Pikadon, which resembles Shevu'as ha'Edus in the following ways: in both it says "Secheta", they are transgressions against a person (and not against Hekdesh), they are oaths, they come through claim and denial, and in both "Oh" is repeated.
Rejection: There are more reasons to learn from Me'ilah!
We still have not answered why they laughed!
Answer #4 (Rav Papa and Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua): They laughed because (in the conclusion) R. Shimon learns a Gezerah Shavah "Secheta-Secheta" to Shevu'as ha'Edus;
How can he say that Shevu'as ha'Pikadon is more lenient, since one is not liable for it if the oath was imposed on him, or if he was Mezid? He should learn from (the Gezerah Shavah in the other direction, from) Shevu'as ha'Edus that he is liable!
Question: That is no reason to laugh. Perhaps he shows that without the Gezerah Shavah, Shevu'as ha'Pikadon has leniencies, therefore we (cannot learn from a Mah Matzinu and) need a Gezerah Shavah to teach to Shevu'as ha'Edus;
In the conclusion, after learning the Gezerah Shavah, he indeed learns from Shevu'as ha'Edus that he is liable!
Answer: That is wrong, for Rava bar Isi taught that R. Shimon says that there is no atonement (Korban) for Mezid Shevu'as ha'Pikadon!
Question: Still, we can say that R. Shimon shows that without the Gezerah Shavah, Shevu'as ha'Pikadon has the leniency that one is exempt if the oath was imposed on him, therefore we need a Gezerah Shavah;
In the conclusion, after learning the Gezerah Shavah, he indeed learns from Shevu'as ha'Edus that he is liable when the oath was imposed on him, but he is exempt for Mezid (which he learns from Me'ilah, because there are more similarities)! (So why did they laugh?)
Answer: They laughed because the Gezerah Shavah should exempt also Shevu'as ha'Edus b'Mezid!
R. Shimon holds that the Torah wrote Shevu'as ha'Edus near the Parshiyos of oaths of Bituy and Tum'as Mikdash and Kodshim, by which it says "v'Nelam" (and it does not say this about Shevu'as ha'Edus) to teach that Shevu'as ha'Edus is liable b'Mezid.