Shevuos Daf 32 חג השבועות דַף 32

The Mishnah taught that if both witnesses denied knowing testimony בבת אחת – simultaneously, they are both liable. If they denied one after the other, the second is exempt, since his testimony would not have sufficed to require payment. The Gemara wonders how their denial could have been simultaneous: הא אי אפשר לצמצם – but it is impossible to be so precise!? Rav Chisda answers that this Mishnah follows Rebbe Yose, who holds אפשר לצמצם. Rebbe Yochanan answers differently: the two denials were made בתוך כדי דיבור – within the time required for a statement, and תוך כדי דיבור is כדיבור – considered like part of the previous statement and considered simultaneous. Rav Acha miDifti asked Ravina that the entire time span of תוך כדי דיבור is only כדי שאילת תלמיד לרב – enough time for a student’s greeting a teacher ("שלום עליך רבי"), which is far shorter than the time required for both עדים to say שבועה שאין אנו יודעין לך עדות – “an oath that we do not know any testimony for you”!? Ravina answered that as long as each witness’s denial is בתוך כדי דיבור of the previous witness, their denial is considered simultaneous.

In a Baraisa, the Tanna Kamma says: משביע עד אחד פטור – one who is משביע a single witness to testify for him, and he falsely denies knowing עדות, [the witness] is exempt. Rebbe Eliezer bar Rebbe Shimon says he is liable. The Gemara concludes that all Tannaim agree that a single witness can only force a defendant to swear, not to pay. However, since most people would opt to pay rather than swear, Rebbe Elazar bar Rebbe Shimon holds: דבר הגורם לממון כממון דמי – something which likely causes a payment of money is considered like directly requiring payment of money, so this witness is considered as having withheld monetary testimony. The Tanna Kamma holds גורם לממון is not like ממון, so a single עד is not liable for denying עדות. Abaye said the same machlokes applies to two witnesses about the סתירה – seclusion of a סוטה. Had they testified, she would have been required to drink the מי סוטה, and lose her kesubah if she refused to do so. However, witnesses to the husband’s קינוי – warning are not liable, because עדים to her seclusion are additionally required. Therefore, their testimony is a mere גורם דגורם – possible cause for a possible cause.

Abaye said there is a case where everyone agrees a single witness is liable for denying testimony, because his testimony would have required payment, such as the case of Rebbe Abba: a man grabbed a silver bar from someone, and the case came before Rebbe Ami. One witness testified to the grabbing, and the defendant responded: אין חטפי ודידי חטפי – “Yes, I grabbed it, but I grabbed that which is mine!” Rebbe Ami wondered how to rule: Had two witnesses testified that he grabbed it, he could not claim it is his, and must return it. Here, since there is only one witness, he could have contradicted his testimony, and has a מגו to be believed that it is his. Still, he cannot keep it, since if he would deny the עד’s testimony, he would have to swear that he did not grab it, which undermines his מגו. He cannot swear against the עד, because he admitted he did grab it. He cannot swear that the bar belongs to him, because that is not the shevuah imposed by the witness. Rebbe Abba, who was sitting there, said that the defendant is someone who must swear, and cannot, וכל המחויב שבועה ואינו יכול לישבע משלם – and anyone who is obligated to swear and cannot, must pay. The witness’s testimony is accepted as fact.