Shevuos Daf 33 חג השבועות דַף 33

The Gemara asks: משביע עדי קנס מהו – if one is משביע witnesses to a claim for a penalty payment, what is the halachah? The question is only relevant according to the Rabbonon, who hold מודה בקנס ואחר כך באו עדים פטור – if one admits in a penalty case and witnesses came afterwards to testify, he is still exempt from paying (otherwise, a קנס is identical to a standard monetary claim). Furthermore, according to the opinion (on the previous Daf) that "דבר הגורם לממון כממון דמי" – something which likely causes a payment of money is considered like directly collecting money, then עדים about a קנס are certainly liable, since their testimony before his admission would have required payment. This question is only according to the opinion that דבר הגורם לממון is not כממון. The question is explained: do we say that since his admission of guilt would exempt him from paying, לאו ממונא קא כפר ליה – [the witnesses] are not considered to be denying testimony about money, and are exempt? Or perhaps we say השתא מיהא לא אודי – now (at the time of the witnesses’ denial), at least, he has not admitted guilt, and their testimony would have required payment? Proofs are suggested from the Mishnah, but deflected.

The next Mishnah states that if one tells witnesses: “I am משביע you, אם לא תבואו ותעידו שאני כהן – that you should come and testify that I am a Kohen,” or that he is a Levi, or that he is not a חלל – disqualified Kohen, or he is משביע them to testify that someone else is a Kohen, etc., they are not liable.In a Baraisa, Tannaim present four different sources that אין הכתוב מדבר אלא בתביעת ממון – the passuk of שבועת העדות only discusses a monetary claim. Rebbe Eliezer says we derive a gezeirah shavah from the "אואין" – multiple “or’s” written by שבועת העדות from the "אואין" written by shevuah about a פקדון, which is about a monetary claim. Although "אואין" are also written about murder and sotah, we derive from פקדון, which similarly has a shevuah and does not involve a Kohen, and not from murder, where there is no shevuah, nor from sotah, which requires a Kohen (the next Daf will explain why we do not derive the gezeirah shavah from שבועת ביטוי).

The Mishnah taught that if one demanded that witnesses testify that someone else is a Kohen, etc., the witnesses are exempt. This implies that if the claim was monetary, they would be liable, even where the claim is made by another party. The Gemara objects that the Mishnah on Daf 37a states that עדים are not liable עד שישמעו מפי התובע – unless they hear the demand to testify from the mouth of the claimant himself!? Shmuel explains that עדים would be liable for a monetary claim made on someone else’s behalf, בבא בהרשאה – where he who comes to Beis Din with a power of attorney, authorized in a שטר, which provides him the legal status of the תובע. [Still, Rashi points out that a הרשאה cannot be used in the Mishnah’s case of one who was משביע witnesses to testify that someone was מאנס or מפתה someone else’s daughter, because a הרשאה is not effective for money never previously possessed by the תובע.] The Gemara asks that a הרשאה cannot be written for מטלטלין, and answers that this is only היכא דכפריה – where [the defendant] had denied the claim, which gives the הרשאה’s statement an appearance of falsehood.