Jerusalem Talmud Shevuot 5.1

משנה: שְׁבוּעַת הַפִּקָּדוֹן נוֹהֶגֶת בָּאֲנָשִׁים וּבַנָּשִׁים וּבָרְחוֹקִים וּבַקְּרוֹבִים בַּכְּשֵׁירִים וּבַפְּסוּלִים בִּפְנֵי בֵית דִּין וְשֶׁלֹּא בִפְנֵי בֵית דִּין מִפִּי עַצְמוֹ. וּמִפִּי אֲחֵר אֵינוֹ חַיָיב עַד שֶׁיִּכְפּוֹר בּוֹ בְּבֵית דִּין דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים בֵּין מִפִּי עַצְמוֹ בֵּין מִפִּי אֲחֵרִים כֵּיוָן שֶׁכָּפַר בּוֹ חַיָיב. וְחַיָיב עַל זְדוֹן שְׁבוּעָה וְעַל שִׁגְגָתָהּ עִם זְדוֹן הַפִּיקָּדוֹן וְאֵינוֹ חַיָיב עַל שִׁגְגָתוֹ. וּמֶה חַיָיב עַל זְדוֹנָהּ אָשָׁם בְּכֶסֶף שְׁקָלִים:

MISHNAH: An oath about a deposit applies to men and women, unrelated persons and relatives, qualified and disqualified persons, before a court or out of court, from his own mouth. From the mouth of another he is liable only if he denies in court, the words of Rebbi Meїr. But the Sages say, whether by his own mouth or the mouth of others, from the moment that he denies, he is liable. He is liable for intent about the oath, or error about it with intent about the deposit, but he is not liable for error about the latter. What is he liable for in case of intentional violation? A reparation offering in the value of two Šeqalim.

הלכה: שְׁבוּעַת הַפִּיקָּדוֹן כול׳. תַּנֵּי. מִפִּי עַצְמוֹ בִשְׁבוּעַת הָעֵדוּת מָהוּ לִהִיוֹת כְּאָלָה. מִפִּי עַצְמוֹ בִשְׁבוּעַת הַפִּיקָּדוֹן מָהוּ לִהִיוֹת כְּאָלָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יּוֹסֵי. מִכֵּיוָן דִּכְתִיב נֶפֶשׁ נֶפֶשׁ כְּמַה שֶׁכּוּלְּהוֹן כָּאן וְכוּלְּהוֹן כָּאן. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא. אָלָה בְבֵית דִּין מַחֲלוֹקֶת רִבִּי מֵאִיר וַחֲכָמִים. וְכִחֵשׁ בַּעֲמִיתוֹ. לִכְשֶׁיָּצָא וִוידּוּיוֹ בִשְׁבוּעָה. פְּרָט לִמְכַחֵשׁ בְּאֶחָד הַשּׁוּתָפִין. פְּרָט לִמְכַחֵשׁ בְּעֵדִים וּבִשְׁטָר. אָמַר רִבִּי יּוֹסֵי. הָדָא אָמְרָה. שְׁנַיִם שֶׁלָּווּ מֵאֶחָד אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא כָתְבִין. אַחֲרָאִין וְעָרְבָאִין זֶה לָזֶה. אַחֲרָאִין וְעָרְבָאִין זֶה לָזֶה. וְלָא עָבְדִין כֵּן. שְׁנַיִם שֶׁהִפְקִידוּ כְּאֶחָד וּבִיקֵּשׁ הָאֶחָד לִיטּוֹל שֶׁלּוֹ אֵין שׁוֹמְעִין לֹו. וְיֵעָשֶׂה כְכוֹפֵר בְּחֶלְקוֹ וִיהֵא חַיָיב. אֶחָד שֶׁהִפְקִיד לִשְׁנַיִם. כָּפַר בּוֹ זֶה חַיָיב. כָּפַר בּוֹ זֶה חַיָיב. הִפְקִיד לָהֶם שָׁוֶה פְרוּטָה. לֹא נִמְצָא מֵבִיא קָרְבָּן עַל חֲצִי פְרוּטָה. וּמָה כָא. אִילּוּ נִשְׁבָּע וְנִשְׁבָּע וְנִשְׁבָּע שֶׁמָּא אֵין מֵבִיא קָרְבָּן עַל חֲצִי פְרוּטָה. תַּמָּן כָּל שְׁבוּעָה חָלָה עַל שָׁוֶה פְרוּטָה. הָכָא אֵין שְׁבוּעָה חָלָה עַל שָׁוֶה פְרוּטָה.

HALAKHAH: “An oath about a deposit,” etc. It was stated: Is an oath in his own formulation of an oath of testimony like an imprecation; in his own words is an oath about a deposit like an imprecation? Rebbi Yose said, since it is written “a person, a person”, everything is here and everything is there. Rebbi Mana said, an imprecation made in court is the topic of disagreement between Rebbi Meїr and the Sages. He lied to his fellow man, if his confession was eliminated by the oath. It excludes one who lied to one of partners; it excludes one who lied where there are witnesses and a document. Rebbi Yose said, this implies that if two people took a loan from one person, even if they did not write “we are responsible and warrantors for one another”, they are responsible and warrantors for one another; but one does not act on this. If two made a joint deposit and one came to retrieve his property, one does not listen to him. Should he not be treated as denying his part and be liable? If one made a deposit with two people. If one denied it, he is liable. If the other denied it, he is liable. If the deposit was worth one peruṭa, does this not result in each of them bringing a sacrifice for half a peruṭa? What here? If one would swear, and swear, and swear, would he not bring a sacrifice for half a peruṭa? There, each oath refers to a peruṭa’s worth. Here no oath refers to a peruṭa’s worth.

רִבִּי לָא וְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ תְּרֵיהוֹן אָמְרִין. לֵית כָּאן עֵדִים. כְּמִי שֶׁיָּצָא וִידּוּיוֹ בִשְׁבוּעָה. לָמָּה. מִשׁוּם שֶׁמְצוּיִין לָמוּת. וּשְׁטָר אֵינוֹ מָצוּי לְאַבֵּד. הֲוֵי לֵית טַעֲמָא אֶלָּא מִשׁוּם שֶׁמְצוּיִין לְשַׁכֵּחַ עֵדוּתָן. תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן. אֵיכָן שׁוֹרִי. אָמַר לוֹ. אָבַד. מַשְׁבִּיעֲךָ אֲנִי. וְאָמַר אָמֵן. וְעֵדִים מְעִידִין אוֹתוֹ שֶׁאֲכָלוֹ. מְשַׁלֵּם אֶת הַקֶּרֶן. הוֹדָה מֵעַצְמוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם קֶרֶן וָחוֹמֶשׁ וְאָשָׁם. מַתְנִיתִין בְּשֶׁאֵין יוֹדֵעַ בָעֵדִים. אֲתַא מֵימַר לָךְ וַאֲפִילוּ יוֹדֵעַ בְּעֵידָיו. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. וּמַתְנִיתָה אָמְרָה כֵן. הָיוּ שְׁתֵּי כִיתֵּי עֵדִים. כָּפְרָה רִאשׁוֹנָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ כָּפְרָה שְׁנִיָיה. שְׁתֵּיהֶן חַיָיבוֹת. נִיחָא רִאשׁוֹנָה מִתְחַיֶיבֶת. שְׁנִיָיה לָמָּה. לָאו מִשּׁוּם שֶׁמְצוּיִין לְשַׁכֵּחַ עֵדוּתָן.

Rebbi La: Both Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both are saying, there is no ”witnesses “here. Why? Because they might die. But might not a document be lost? Therefore, the reason can only be that they might forget their testimony. There, we have stated: “Where is my ox? He told him, it is lost. I want you to swear, he said, Amen. But witnesses testify that he ate it. He has to pay the value. If he confessed himself, he has to pay the value, and the fifth, and the reparation sacrifice.” The Mishnah [applies] if he does not know that there are witnesses. He comes to tell you, even if he knows that there are witnesses. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says so: “If there were two groups of witnesses, if the first group reneged and after this the second, both are liable.” One understands that the first group becomes liable. Why the second? Not because they might forget their testimony? [Here also, because they (are commanded) to forget their testimony.]

וְכִחֶשׁ בָּהּ. וְלֹא בוֹ. בֶּן עַזַּאי אוֹמֵר. שָׁלֹשׁ אֲבֵידוֹת הֵן. בְּיוֹדֵעַ בָּהּ וּבְמוֹצְאֶיהָ. בָּהּ וְלֹא בְּמוֹצְאֶיהָ. לֹא בָהּ וְלֹא בְּמוֹצְאֶיהָ. רִבִּי חוֹנְיָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה. כּוּלְּהוֹן לִפְטוֹר. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. לֵית כֵּן. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בָעֵי. וִיהֵא כֵן הַפְּטוֹר. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא. לֵית כֵּן מִשָּׁלֹשׁ אֲבֵידוֹת. בְּיוּדֵעַ בָּהּ וּבְמוֹצְאֶיהָ. בָּהּ וְלֹא בְּמוֹצְאֶיהָ. לֹא בָהּ וְלֹא בְּמוֹצְאֶיהָ. בָּהּ וּבְמוֹצְאֶיהָ נָן קַיָימִין. אֶלָּא שֶׁמְכַחֵשׁ בָּהּ וּבְמוֹצְאֶיהָ. בְּמוֹצְאֶיהָ וְלֹא בָהּ. בָּהּ וְלֹא בְּמוֹצְאֶיהָ. כֵּינִי מַתְנִיתַה. בָּהּ וּבְמוֹצְאֶיהָ.

He denied it, not him. “Ben Azzai says, there are three kinds of lost properties. One who knows about it and its finder; about it but not about its finder; neither about it nor about its finder.” Rebbi Onias in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: All of them to relieve from liability. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Yose: This is not so. Rebbi Yose asked, why should it be to relieve from liability? Rebbi Mana said, the three kinds of lost property cannot be “one who knows about it and its finder; about it but not about its finder; neither about it nor about its finder.” About it and its finder, that is where we hold. But it must be about one who denies [knowledge] about it and its finder; about its finder but not about it; about it but not about its finder. So is the baraita: “About it and its finder.”