Shevuos Daf 37 חג השבועות דַף 37

The Gemara relates that several Amoraim who were learning מסכת שבועות in Rabbah’s yeshivah met Rav Kahana. He asked them: הזיד בשבועת הפקדון והתרו בו מהו – if one intentionally [lied] when swearing about a פקדון, and [עדים] had warned him, what is the halachah? Do we say that since the law of שבועת הפקדון is a novelty, דבכל התורה לא אשכחן מזיד דמייתי קרבן – for throughout the entire Torah, we do not find a מזיד who brings a korban, yet one who swears falsely about a הפקדון does bring a korban; therefore, even where he was warned, he still brings a korban? Or do we say that the korban is only obligated when there was no התראה, but if there was, he receives malkus instead? Or, is he liable to both? The Gemara presents several proofs and deflects them. Among them is a Baraisa which teaches that שבועת הפקדון with התראה is "אינו לוקה" – does not incur malkus (but would bring a korban), and the Gemara answers that it may mean דאינו נפטר במלקות – he is not absolved through his malkus, but must also bring a korban.

When the above question was related to Rabbah, he remarked that the question assumes that without התראה, one would bring a korban for swearing falsely, although עדים are available to disprove him. He asked, כפירת דברים בעלמא – it is a mere denial of facts without monetary impact, since he will be refuted by the עדים, and should not be liable to a korban!? The Gemara observes that Rabbah holds הכופר בממון שיש עליו עדים פטור – one who denies a monetary obligation about which there are witnesses is exempt from a korban. Rabbah’s opinion is ultimately refuted from the Baraisa quoted above, which clearly obligates a korban for שבועת הפקדון even where עדים were available. Rebbe Yochanan said that one is liable for swearing even when there are עדים, and Rav Pappa explains that his denial does have a monetary impact: עדים עבידי דמייתי – witnesses are prone to death, and may never contradict the נתבע’s denial.

Rebbe Yochanan said that one who swears falsely about a monetary obligation recorded in a שטר is exempt. Rav Huna brei d’Rav Yehoshua asked that a שטר may become lost and instead explained that the שטר represents a שעבוד קרקעות – lien on the [debtor’s] land, ואין מביאין קרבן על כפירת שעבוד קרקעות – and one does not bring a korban for denying a lien on land, because a שעבוד is the equivalent of land itself, about which there is no shevuah obligation. Rebbe Yochanan and Rebbe Elazar argue about עדים who deny knowing testimony about the ownership of land. Rebbe Yochanan holds they are פטור, like he holds that a שבועת הפקדון about a שעבוד קרקעות is פטור. The Gemara suggests that this machlokes parallels a machlokes Tannaim about stealing land. Rebbe Eliezer holds that if one steals land and it becomes ruined, he must reimburse the owner, but the Chochomim hold he can return it as is, because land cannot be halachically stolen. This machlokes depends on whether to darshen the pesukim of stealing as a כלל ופרט וכלל, excluding קרקע, slaves, and שטרות, or as a ריבה ומיעט וריבה, and only exclude שטרות. Since these pesukim also discuss שבועת הפקדון, the machlokes would presumably apply there too. However, the Gemara concludes that Rebbe Eliezer may agree to exclude land from shevuos, based on a superfluous word.