(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Shevuos 33


(a) What does our Mishnah say about a case where Reuven asks witnesses to testify that Shimon has a deposit, a loan, theft and a lost article belonging to him, and they reply with a Shevu'ah ...
  1. ... that they know of no such testimony?
  2. ... that they are not aware that Shimon has a deposit, a loan, theft and a loss of his?
(b) What does the Tana say about Reuven who asks witnesses to testify that Shimon has of his a deposit comprising wheat, barley and spelt?

(c) Why does the Tana find it necessary to repeat the Halachah?

(a) What does the Tana say about a case where Reuven says to two witnesses 'Mashbi'a Ani Aleichem Im Lo Tavo'u Ve'te'iduni ...
  1. ... she'Yesh Li be'Yad P'loni Nezek, ve'Chatzi Nezek, Tashlumei Kefel, ve'Tashlumei Arba'ah ve'Chamishah'?
  2. ... she'Anas Ish P'loni es Biti, u'Pitah es Biti'?
(b) And he says the same about 'Mashbi'a Ani Aleichem Im Lo Tavo'u Ve'te'iduni she'Hikani B'ni', ve'she'Chaval bi Chaveri ve'she'Hidlik Gedishi be'Yom ha'Kipurim'.
Why must 'she'Hikani B'ni' be speaking about a wound that is less than a Shaveh P'rutah (even though 've'she'Chaval bi Chaveri' speaks about one that is more)?

(c) What Chidush is the last case in the Mishnah 've'she'Hidlik Gedishi be'Yom ha'Kipurim' coming to teach us?

(a) What do we learn from the Pasuk in Mishpatim (in connection with payment of a K'nas) "Asher Yarshi'un Elohim"?

(b) We ask whether Eidei K'nas who deny knowledge of the testimony, are Chayav to bring a Korban or not.
What is the basis of the She'eilah? Why might they be ...

  1. ... Patur?
  2. ... Chayav nonetheless?
(c) Why does the She'eilah not even begin according to Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon? What does he say about witnesses who testify after the defendant has already admitted that he owes the K'nas?

(d) Why can the Rabbanan of Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon not hold like Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon in the previous Sugya ('Mashbi'a Eid Echad, Chayav')?

(a) In rejecting the proof from 'Chatzi Nezek' in our Mishnah, that the witnesses are Chayav for their denial in cases of K'nas, we initially establish the case according to those who hold in Bava Kama 'Palga Nizka Mamona'.
How do we then establish it even according to those who hold 'Palga Nizka K'nasa'?

(b) Why can we not resolve the She'eilah from the cases of K'nas in our Mishnah ...

  1. ... 'Tashlumei Kefel' and 'Tashlumei Arba'ah va'Chamishah'?
  2. ... 'she'Anas Ish P'loni es Biti u'Pitah es Biti'?
(c) If the Chidush is not 'K'nas' then what is the Chidush ...
  1. ... in the Reisha ('Chatzi Nezek, Kefel, Arba'ah va'Chamishah')?
  2. ... in the Seifa ('she'Anas Ish P'loni es Biti ve'she'Pitah es Biti ... ve'she'Hidlik es Gedishi be'Yom ha'Kipurim')?
(d) This comes to preclude the opinion of Rebbi Nechunyah ben ha'Kanah.
What would he say in a case where Reuven lit Shimon's haystack on Yom Kipur?
(a) What do we try and prove from the Beraisa, which obligates witnesses who deny knowledge that Shimon married Reuven's daughter and then claimed that she had not been a virgin when he married her, to bring a Korban?

(b) To reject the proof, who do we establish as the author of the Beraisa?

(c) We query this however, by pointing out that the Seifa 'Hodeh mi'Pi Atzmo, Patur', seems to go like the Rabbanan.
What makes us say that? How do we initially explain the Beraisa?

(d) We finally establish the entire Beraisa like Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon.
How will we then establish the Seifa?

Answers to questions



(a) Why does our Mishnah exempt the witnesses from a Korban where, following Reuven's claim, they deny knowledge that ...
  1. ... Reuven is a Kohen, or a Levi, not a ben Gerushah or a ben Chalutzah, or that Shimon is a Kohen ... '?
  2. ... Levi raped Shimon's daughter or enticed her?
(b) Why can the Tana not mean that Shimon raped his own daughter and he is Patur because he is Chayav Misah?

(c) The Tana concludes 've'she'Chaval bi B'ni, ve'she'Chaval bi Chaveri ve'she'Hidlik Gedishi be'Shabbos'.
What is the reason for these three rulings?

(a) Why did the Tana insert the case of 'Ish P'loni Kohen Hu ... ', implying that in a case of 'Manah li'Peloni be'Yad P'loni (which involves a monetary claim), the witnesses would be Chayav.
Why is that, bearing in mind that it is (apparently) a third person who is claiming from the witnesses? How does Shmuel therefore establish the Mishnah?

(b) The Neherda'i prohibit writing an Urch'sa on Metaltelin.
What is an 'Urch'sa'?
What is the Neherda'i's reason?

(c) How do we now reconcile Shmuel (who was Rosh Yeshivah in Neherda'a) with the Neherda'i?

(a) What does Rebbi Eliezer learn from the fact that the Torah writes "O Ra'ah O Yada" here (by Shevu'as ha'Eidus), and "O bi'Sesumes Yad O be'Gazel O Ashak"?

(b) We prefer to learn from the 'O'in' of Shevu'as ha'Pikadon rather than from the 'O'in' of Rotze'ach ("O be'Eivah Hikahu O Hishlich Alav bi'Tzedi'ah"), which do not refer specifically to Mamon, because it is not speaking about Shevu'ah.
But why do we not learn from the 'O'in' of Sotah ("O Avar Alav Ru'ach Kin'ah O Ish Asher Ta'avor Alav ... "), which does mention Shevu'ah, and which, like Rotze'ach, is not confined specifically to Mamon?

(a) And what does ...
  1. ... Rebbi Akiva learn from the Pasuk (by Shevu'as Oleh ve'Yored) "Vehayah Ki Ye'sham le'Achas *me'Eileh*"?
  2. ... Rebbi Yossi Hagelili learn from "ve'Hu Eid O Ra'ah O Nishba"?
(b) What is a case of ...
  1. ... Re'iyah without Yedi'ah?
  2. ... Yedi'ah without Re'iyah?
(c) In which point does Rebbi Shimon learn Shevu'as Eidus from Shevu'as ha'Pikadon?

(d) How does Rebbi Shimon initially back this up with a 'Kal va'Chomer'? Which series of Chumros does Pikadon have over Eidus?

Answers to questions

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,