Podcasts about mishna

When both parties are untrustworthy and cannot take an oath, Rabbi Yosi and Rabbi Meir disagree about the proper procedure. A debate emerges about who holds which opinion, as one maintains the money should be split while the other argues that the oath returns to its original place, though it remains unclear which rabbi said which. Additionally, there is disagreement about the meaning of the position stating "the oath returns to its place." Rabbi Ami explains that one position is held by the rabbis in Israel while the other belongs to the rabbis in Babylonia. Rav Pappa clarifies that the Babylonian rabbis are Rav and Shmuel, while the Israeli position is represented by Rabbi Abba. Shimon ben Tarfon offers several statements concerning the importance of associating with the right people and avoiding the wrong ones. The Gemara examines the case of a storekeeper who was asked to pay someone's workers. The workers claim they never received payment while the storekeeper insists he paid them. The question arises whether Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi agreed with the Mishna's opinion that each party can take an oath to get paid by the employer. Another issue concerns contradictory witness testimony. If two groups of witnesses contradict each other in court, can they be believed to testify in a different case? Or since we know one group certainly lied, should we reject both groups' testimony in future cases? Rav Huna and Rav Chisda each take different positions on this matter.

Mishna Yomi - Avos 4:22-5:1L'uli Nishmas Etta Ahuva bas YaakovJun 19, 2025Thu23 Sivan 5785

Mishna Yomi - Avos 4:20-21L'uli Nishmas Etta Ahuva bas YaakovJun 18, 2025Wed22 Sivan 5785

Today's daf is sponsored by Deborah Aschheim (Weiss) on the occasion of the Bat Mitzvah of her granddaughter Tamar Chava Baumser. "She demonstrates that there are no boundaries to acts of gemulat chasidim." Today's daf is dedicated by the Hadran Zoom family in honor of Chani Farber and Saar Har-Chen, on the occasion of their wedding. We wish you a new home that will be grounded in the happiness that is promised to one who brings their learning always, as we learned with Chani's mother, Rabbanit Michelle: אַשְׁרִי מִי שֶׁבָּא לְכָאן וְתַלְמוּדוּ בְּיָדו. If the person who is obligated to take an oath by Torah law is not trustworthy, i.e. if they lied in a previous case or are in the category of those who are exempt from testifying, the obligation to take the oath is placed upon the other person. If one asks a storekeeper to pay their workers and they will pay back the storekeeper later, and the storekeeper claims that he/she paid them and the workers claim they were never paid, each of them takes an oath and the person needs to pay them both. Ben Nanas agrees that the person needs to pay both, but does not allow each side to take an oath as it creates a situation where clearly one side is taking a false oath. The Mishna lists other cases where there is a disagreement between a storekeeper and a buyer about whether the money was already paid or the item was given to the buyer. Who takes the oath in each case? Generally, when one holds a deed in hand, they have the upper hand. However, the Mishna mentions cases where the one holding the deed needs to take an oath in order to collect the money. The Gemara explains why the worker is believed to say he/she didn't get paid for a job performed. However, this halacha is qualified as only applying in a case where the time in which the worker should have been paid hasn't passed yet - once that time passes, there is an assumption that the employer paid the worker. Shmuel and Rav both hold that the worker can take this oath to get paid only if there were witnesses who saw the worker being hired. If not, the employer can claim he/she never hired the worker at all and therefore is believed by saying the worker was already paid because of a "migo." Rava disagrees with this.

Mishna Yomi - Avos 4:18-19L'uli Nishmas Etta Ahuva bas YaakovJun 17, 2025Tue21 Sivan 5785Avos 4:18-19

Mishna Yomi - Avos 4:14-15L'uli Nishmas Etta Ahuva bas YaakovJun 15, 2025Sun19 Sivan 5785

Mishna Yomi - Avos 4:16-17L'uli Nishmas Etta Ahuva bas YaakovJun 16, 2025Mon20 Sivan 5785Avos 4:16-17

Today's daf is sponsored by Deborah Aschheim (Weiss) on the occasion of the Bat Mitzvah of her granddaughter Tamar Chava Baumser. "She demonstrates that there are no boundaries to acts of gemulat chasidim." Today's daf is dedicated by the Hadran Zoom family in honor of Chani Farber and Saar Har-Chen, on the occasion of their wedding. We wish you a new home that will be grounded in the happiness that is promised to one who brings their learning always, as we learned with Chani's mother, Rabbanit Michelle: אַשְׁרִי מִי שֶׁבָּא לְכָאן וְתַלְמוּדוּ בְּיָדו. If the person who is obligated to take an oath by Torah law is not trustworthy, i.e. if they lied in a previous case or are in the category of those who are exempt from testifying, the obligation to take the oath is placed upon the other person. If one asks a storekeeper to pay their workers and they will pay back the storekeeper later, and the storekeeper claims that he/she paid them and the workers claim they were never paid, each of them takes an oath and the person needs to pay them both. Ben Nanas agrees that the person needs to pay both, but does not allow each side to take an oath as it creates a situation where clearly one side is taking a false oath. The Mishna lists other cases where there is a disagreement between a storekeeper and a buyer about whether the money was already paid or the item was given to the buyer. Who takes the oath in each case? Generally, when one holds a deed in hand, they have the upper hand. However, the Mishna mentions cases where the one holding the deed needs to take an oath in order to collect the money. The Gemara explains why the worker is believed to say he/she didn't get paid for a job performed. However, this halacha is qualified as only applying in a case where the time in which the worker should have been paid hasn't passed yet - once that time passes, there is an assumption that the employer paid the worker. Shmuel and Rav both hold that the worker can take this oath to get paid only if there were witnesses who saw the worker being hired. If not, the employer can claim he/she never hired the worker at all and therefore is believed by saying the worker was already paid because of a "migo." Rava disagrees with this.

Today's daf is sponsored by Binyamin Cohen to wish Mazel tov to Caroline Musin Berkowitz on completing Shas! "We're inspired by your amazing accomplishment and dedication to learning." What categories of items are excluded from oaths of the shomrim? How is this derived from the Torah? What is the argument between Rabbi Meir and the rabbis in the Mishna regarding items that are or are not considered like land (to be exempt from oaths)? Another criterion for oaths is that the claim must be for a measured item. Rava and Abaye disagree about how to understand this. The Mishna lists several cases regarding a disagreement between the creditor and debtor about the value of an item given as collateral that the creditor claims was lost. In which cases would one side, or perhaps both, need to take an oath? If one loans money with collateral and the item gets lost, what type of responsibility does the creditor assume for the item? What if the creditor and debtor disagree regarding the value of the lost item? Shmuel holds that the creditor no longer owes any money even if the item is worth significantly less than the loan. How does his opinion work with the Mishna?

Study Guide Shevuot 44 Is Shmuel's opinion—that a creditor who loses collateral cannot collect the loan even if the collateral was worth much less than the loan amount—the subject of a tannaitic debate? The Gemara suggests two possible tannaitic debates that could relate to this issue, but rejects both, since the basis for each argument can be explained differently. Generally, oaths are used to exempt defendants from payment. However, in several unique circumstances delineated in the Mishna, a claimant can take an oath in order to receive payment.

Study Guide Shevuot 44 Is Shmuel's opinion—that a creditor who loses collateral cannot collect the loan even if the collateral was worth much less than the loan amount—the subject of a tannaitic debate? The Gemara suggests two possible tannaitic debates that could relate to this issue, but rejects both, since the basis for each argument can be explained differently. Generally, oaths are used to exempt defendants from payment. However, in several unique circumstances delineated in the Mishna, a claimant can take an oath in order to receive payment.

Today's daf is sponsored by Binyamin Cohen to wish Mazel tov to Caroline Musin Berkowitz on completing Shas! "We're inspired by your amazing accomplishment and dedication to learning." What categories of items are excluded from oaths of the shomrim? How is this derived from the Torah? What is the argument between Rabbi Meir and the rabbis in the Mishna regarding items that are or are not considered like land (to be exempt from oaths)? Another criterion for oaths is that the claim must be for a measured item. Rava and Abaye disagree about how to understand this. The Mishna lists several cases regarding a disagreement between the creditor and debtor about the value of an item given as collateral that the creditor claims was lost. In which cases would one side, or perhaps both, need to take an oath? If one loans money with collateral and the item gets lost, what type of responsibility does the creditor assume for the item? What if the creditor and debtor disagree regarding the value of the lost item? Shmuel holds that the creditor no longer owes any money even if the item is worth significantly less than the loan. How does his opinion work with the Mishna?

-

Today’s daf is sponsored by Rabbi Art Gould “in gratitude to HaShem for helping me to find a new partner to love and be loved by, and to walk with on a new journey.” The Gemara continues by presenting cases involving disputes between lenders and borrowers regarding debt repayment, along with the ruling given in each case. In the Mishna there is a contradiction because it is written that we do not administer oaths to a minor and it is also written that we administer oaths to a minor. Rav and Shmuel each interpret the case of administering oaths to a minor in different ways. Rav says it refers to a child who makes a claim for their deceased father's money, and therefore we administer an oath because the loan was to an adult, even though he is not the actual creditor who gave the money originally. According to his explanation, the Mishna matches the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov because the Sages disagree in such a case and do not obligate. The Gemara brings two different explanations to understand what the point of dispute is between Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov and the Sages. Shmuel's explanation is that the Mishna refers to the oath of one who tries to collect his father's loan from an orphan. There is no oath for cases of land, slaves, documents, and consecrated property. Also, there are no laws of double, four and five payment, and oaths of guardians for these type of items. From where is this derived in the verses?

The magic of twilight isn't just for vampires—it's a cornerstone of Jewish ritual and philosophy. Twilight in Judaism is more than just a daily transition—it's a liminal space rich with spiritual significance and halachic implications. We explore the concept of "bein hashmashot" (between the suns) in Jewish law and philosophy, examining its role in Shabbat observance, Passover rituals, and prayer timing. The episode delves into rabbinic debates on defining twilight and its duration, revealing how this ambiguous period embodies uncertainty and celebrates mystery in Jewish thought. Key Takeaways Uncertainty can breed creativity and innovation. Liminal spaces often precede major life transitions. Embracing ambiguity can lead to deeper spiritual experiences. Timestamps [00:00] – The personal story behind the episode: a rabbinic rejection using twilight metaphor [01:30] – Introduction to twilight in Jewish ritual and halakhic significance [03:00] – Exploring the Mishna's mention of twilight miracles and coded miracles [04:45] – Twilight and uncertainty: How it shaped Jewish philosophical thought [06:00] – Biblical references to twilight and its Hebrew/Aramaic translations [10:30] – Halakhic debates over defining twilight: Rashi vs. Ibn Ezra [12:00] – Talmudic insights into twilight as a period of halakhic uncertainty [15:00] – Mystical and cultural perspectives on twilight in Judaism [20:45] – Personal customs, twilight babies, and matzah-making rituals [29:00] – Final reflections and the full story of the rabbinic rejection using twilight metaphor Links & Learnings Sign up for free and get more from our weekly newsletter https://madlik.com/ Safaria Source Sheet: https://www.sefaria.org/sheets/656116 Transcript on episode web page: https://madlik.com/2025/06/11/embracing-the-ambiguity-of-transition/

Today’s daf is sponsored by Rabbi Art Gould “in gratitude to HaShem for helping me to find a new partner to love and be loved by, and to walk with on a new journey.” The Gemara continues by presenting cases involving disputes between lenders and borrowers regarding debt repayment, along with the ruling given in each case. In the Mishna there is a contradiction because it is written that we do not administer oaths to a minor and it is also written that we administer oaths to a minor. Rav and Shmuel each interpret the case of administering oaths to a minor in different ways. Rav says it refers to a child who makes a claim for their deceased father's money, and therefore we administer an oath because the loan was to an adult, even though he is not the actual creditor who gave the money originally. According to his explanation, the Mishna matches the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov because the Sages disagree in such a case and do not obligate. The Gemara brings two different explanations to understand what the point of dispute is between Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov and the Sages. Shmuel's explanation is that the Mishna refers to the oath of one who tries to collect his father's loan from an orphan. There is no oath for cases of land, slaves, documents, and consecrated property. Also, there are no laws of double, four and five payment, and oaths of guardians for these type of items. From where is this derived in the verses?

Today's daf is sponsored for a refuah shleima for Shmuel Henoch Yaakov Ben Chiyena. Rav Nachman instituted a shevuat heiset, a rabbinic oath, for defendants who completely denied a claim. There is debate about the exact circumstances under which Rav Nachman required this oath. What distinguishes a Torah-mandated oath from a rabbinically instituted one (heiset)? The Gemara presents three possible differences. Under what circumstances can a creditor demand that a debtor repay money in front of witnesses, such that without witnesses, the debtor's claim of having already repaid becomes invalid? The Gemara quotes two different versions of Rav Asi's position, as well as two different versions of Shmuel's response to Rav Asi. Their opinions are then questioned and explained in light of our Mishna. The Gemara presents four actual cases involving disputes between creditors and debtors, explaining how each case was ruled. In some instances, Abaye and Rava disagreed about the proper ruling.

Mishna Yomi - Avos 4:6-7L'uli Nishmas Etta Ahuva bas YaakovJun 11, 2025Wed15 Sivan 5785

Mishna Yomi - Avos 4:10-11L'uli Nishmas Etta Ahuva bas YaakovJun 13, 2025Fri17 Sivan 5785

Mishna Yomi - Avos 4:8-9L'uli Nishmas Etta Ahuva bas YaakovJun 12, 2025Thu16 Sivan 5785

Mishna Yomi - Avos 4:12-13L'uli Nishmas Etta Ahuva bas YaakovJun 14, 2025Shab18 Sivan 5785

Today's daf is sponsored for a refuah shleima for Shmuel Henoch Yaakov Ben Chiyena. Rav Nachman instituted a shevuat heiset, a rabbinic oath, for defendants who completely denied a claim. There is debate about the exact circumstances under which Rav Nachman required this oath. What distinguishes a Torah-mandated oath from a rabbinically instituted one (heiset)? The Gemara presents three possible differences. Under what circumstances can a creditor demand that a debtor repay money in front of witnesses, such that without witnesses, the debtor's claim of having already repaid becomes invalid? The Gemara quotes two different versions of Rav Asi's position, as well as two different versions of Shmuel's response to Rav Asi. Their opinions are then questioned and explained in light of our Mishna. The Gemara presents four actual cases involving disputes between creditors and debtors, explaining how each case was ruled. In some instances, Abaye and Rava disagreed about the proper ruling.

Study Guide Shevuot 40 Rav and Shmuel disagree about how to understand the line in the Mishna regarding an oath of a partial admission: "a claim must be two ma'ah of silver" - is it referring to the amount of the claim - meaning what the claimant's side is demanding or is it referring to the defendant's claim - how much is the defendant denying? There are four attempts to support Rav's understanding from the Mishna and other tannaitic sources, however the first three can be explained according to Shmuel as well. Two other rulings of Shmuel are brought, including a basic one that if one claims the other owes two different items and the other admits of having one of the items, the defendant takes an oath of partial admission. Two versions are brought about whether Rabbi Yochanan agreed or disagreed with this opinion. Proofs are brought to prove Shmuel's opinion but are proven to be inconclusive. Likewise, those same proofs are brought to disprove the opinion that Rabbi Yochanan disagrees but are rejected in the same way.  

1 section- Rav follows position of R Yehuda that "tolin" in 5th hour (and not RM/RG in Mishna) and Rebbi supports this psak

1 section- Rav follows position of R Yehuda that "tolin" in 5th hour (and not RM/RG in Mishna) and Rebbi supports this psak

Study Guide Shevuot 40 Rav and Shmuel disagree about how to understand the line in the Mishna regarding an oath of a partial admission: "a claim must be two ma'ah of silver" - is it referring to the amount of the claim - meaning what the claimant's side is demanding or is it referring to the defendant's claim - how much is the defendant denying? There are four attempts to support Rav's understanding from the Mishna and other tannaitic sources, however the first three can be explained according to Shmuel as well. Two other rulings of Shmuel are brought, including a basic one that if one claims the other owes two different items and the other admits of having one of the items, the defendant takes an oath of partial admission. Two versions are brought about whether Rabbi Yochanan agreed or disagreed with this opinion. Proofs are brought to prove Shmuel's opinion but are proven to be inconclusive. Likewise, those same proofs are brought to disprove the opinion that Rabbi Yochanan disagrees but are rejected in the same way.  

Today's daf is dedicated by the Hadran Zoom family in honor of Maggie Sandler's birthday! "Your incredible work elevates not just the content of our daily learning, but its entire atmosphere, as you create a beautiful, seamless experience for all of us. You truly bring to life the principle of hiddur mitzva that we learned in Masechet Shabbat: ״זֶה אֵלִי וְאַנְוֵהוּ״, הִתְנָאֵה לְפָנָיו בְּמִצְוֹת" Before administering the oath to a defendant, the court delivers several cautionary statements about the severity of swearing falsely. These warnings are designed to deter the person from taking a false oath. A braita lists all these statements, and the Gemara both raises difficulties with them and clarifies their meaning and sources. The Gemara then turns to a dispute between Rav and Shmuel regarding the minimum amounts required for a claim, denial, and admission. They disagree about the interpretation of the sentence: "The claim is two maah of silver and the admission is one pruta." Rav holds that for the oath to apply, the total claim must amount to two maah and a pruta—with the minimum denial being two maah and the minimum admission being one pruta. Shmuel, however, rules that both the minimum admission and the minimum denial need only be worth a pruta each, while the minimum total claim must be worth two maah. Rava explains that Rav's interpretation finds support in the Mishna, while Shmuel's position aligns with the biblical verses in the Torah.  

1 section- resolution of opinions of RM/RY within positions of Abayey (2 V's) and Rava to clarify Mishna in Sanhedrin (testimony discrepancy) and Pesachim (Rabbinic extension to issur chametz) regarding window assumed will have human error

1 section- resolution of opinions of RM/RY within positions of Abayey (2 V's) and Rava to clarify Mishna in Sanhedrin (testimony discrepancy) and Pesachim (Rabbinic extension to issur chametz) regarding window assumed will have human error

Mishna Yomi - Avos 3:18-4:1L'uli Nishmas Etta Ahuva bas YaakovJun 8, 2025Sun12 Sivan 5785

Mishna Yomi - Avos 3:16-17L'uli Nishmas Etta Ahuva bas YaakovJun 7, 2025Shab11 Sivan 5785

Mishna Yomi - Avos 4:2-3L'uli Nishmas Etta Ahuva bas YaakovJun 9, 2025Mon13 Sivan 5785

Mishna Yomi - Avos 4:4-5L'uli Nishmas Etta Ahuva bas YaakovJun 10, 2025Tue14 Sivan 5785

Today's daf is dedicated by the Hadran Zoom family in honor of Maggie Sandler's birthday! "Your incredible work elevates not just the content of our daily learning, but its entire atmosphere, as you create a beautiful, seamless experience for all of us. You truly bring to life the principle of hiddur mitzva that we learned in Masechet Shabbat: ״זֶה אֵלִי וְאַנְוֵהוּ״, הִתְנָאֵה לְפָנָיו בְּמִצְוֹת" Before administering the oath to a defendant, the court delivers several cautionary statements about the severity of swearing falsely. These warnings are designed to deter the person from taking a false oath. A braita lists all these statements, and the Gemara both raises difficulties with them and clarifies their meaning and sources. The Gemara then turns to a dispute between Rav and Shmuel regarding the minimum amounts required for a claim, denial, and admission. They disagree about the interpretation of the sentence: "The claim is two maah of silver and the admission is one pruta." Rav holds that for the oath to apply, the total claim must amount to two maah and a pruta—with the minimum denial being two maah and the minimum admission being one pruta. Shmuel, however, rules that both the minimum admission and the minimum denial need only be worth a pruta each, while the minimum total claim must be worth two maah. Rava explains that Rav's interpretation finds support in the Mishna, while Shmuel's position aligns with the biblical verses in the Torah.  

Study Guide Shevuot 38 This week’s learning is sponsored by Robert and Paula Cohen in loving memory of Helen Cohen, Henna bat Yitzchak Nechemia.  Today's daf is sponsored by Shifra Tyberg, in memory of her father Zvi Tyberg on his yahrzeit today. If one takes an oath of deposit to several people at once, in what circumstances will that be required to bring multiple sacrifices? The Mishna listed three different opinions and a braita is brought with two opinions - Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda. Shmuel and Rabbi Yochanan bring different explanations as to which wording Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda disagree about. If one takes an oath that one does not have several items of another, if it was a lie, are they liable also for the general statement that they do not have any item or only on the particular different items? There is a debate between amoraim about this issue. The sixth chapter discusses an oath administered by the judges, more particularly an oath of one who admits to part of a claim. What is the minimum value of the claim and the partial admission required in order to be obligated to take an oath? Another requirement is that the admission be about the same type of item as the claim. However, Rabban Gamliel disagrees about this.

Study Guide Shevuot 38 This week’s learning is sponsored by Robert and Paula Cohen in loving memory of Helen Cohen, Henna bat Yitzchak Nechemia.  Today's daf is sponsored by Shifra Tyberg, in memory of her father Zvi Tyberg on his yahrzeit today. If one takes an oath of deposit to several people at once, in what circumstances will that be required to bring multiple sacrifices? The Mishna listed three different opinions and a braita is brought with two opinions - Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda. Shmuel and Rabbi Yochanan bring different explanations as to which wording Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda disagree about. If one takes an oath that one does not have several items of another, if it was a lie, are they liable also for the general statement that they do not have any item or only on the particular different items? There is a debate between amoraim about this issue. The sixth chapter discusses an oath administered by the judges, more particularly an oath of one who admits to part of a claim. What is the minimum value of the claim and the partial admission required in order to be obligated to take an oath? Another requirement is that the admission be about the same type of item as the claim. However, Rabban Gamliel disagrees about this.

Today's daf is sponsored by Meryll Page in loving memory of her father George M. Levine, Yosef Michael haLevi, on his 16th yahrzeit. "His memory is a blessing and a constant presence in my life." Words can carry different meanings depending on their context. Several examples are brought from the Tanach to show the meanings of various words.  Rabbi Meir and the rabbis debate whether invoking God's name in various contexts requires using the actual divine name or whether a substitute designation suffices. What textual sources do they cite to support their respective positions? One should be careful to change the language of the Mishna and even a verse if it may sound like one is cursing someone else while reciting it.  In the Mishna, Rabbi Meir disagreed with the rabbis that one can apply the principle that allows deriving a positive statement from a negative one. However, this creates a contradiction with his stance on stipulations, where he maintains that they must be formulated in both positive and negative terms. To resolve this inconsistency, the text reassigns the positions—switching who said what in our Mishna. Under what circumstances would someone be obligated or exempt from bringing a guilt offering for an oath of deposit? In which situations could a person become liable for multiple sacrifices regarding a single oath of deposit? An oath of deposit applies only to denying monetary claims, not to matters involving fines.  

The Mishna ruled that if there were two groups of witnesses and each group denied knowing testimony, both groups are liable. The Gemara raises a difficulty with this case, arguing that the first group should not be liable since another group of witnesses can still testify. Ravina resolves this difficulty by limiting the Mishna's ruling to a specific case: where the second group of witnesses are related to each other (as their wives are sisters) and both wives are about to die when the first group takes their oath denying knowledge of the testimony. The Mishna lists various cases where witnesses are asked to testify about multiple things. In some cases, they are only liable one sacrifice and in others multiple sacrifices. An oath of testimony only applies in monetary cases. A question is asked: Does this also include cases involving fines (kenas)? Before answering this question, the Gemara limits the question to the rabbis' position in their debate with Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon. Rabbi Elazar rules that if someone admits owing a fine, they are exempt, but if witnesses come forward even after the confession, they are obligated to pay the fine. Therefore, an oath of testimony would clearly apply here, since the witnesses would definitively obligate the defendant. However, the rabbis hold that witnesses can only obligate the defendant if they testify before a confession. Therefore, the question arises whether an oath of testimony would apply here, since it's possible the witnesses are not causing a loss to the claimant—the defendant could simply confess and be exempt. This question is further limited by assuming the rabbis also hold by the position of the rabbis on a different issue: that davar hagorem l'mamon (something that can possibly lead to a monetary obligation) is not considered a monetary obligation. Rabbi Elazar ben Rabbi Shimon disagrees and holds that such potential obligations are considered monetary obligations which would obligate the witnesses a sacrifice if they do not testify. After establishing these parameters for the question, the Gemara examines various cases from our Mishna and other sources to attempt an answer. However, neither source provides a conclusive resolution. From where do they derive that an oath of testimony is only for monetary cases? Four different rabbis each bring different proofs.