An oath denying a pikadon does not apply to k’nas payments (fines). Rav Kahana questions whether there will be lashes in addition to a sacrifice or in place of a sacrifice in a case where there are witnesses who warned the person before he/she too0k the oath. Several attempts are made to answer his questions from various sources, but not prove conclusive. Raba then questions Rav Kahana’s question and suggests that there can never be a case because if there are witnesses to warn, then they must also be witnesses to the act in which case the denial is irrelevant as the witnesses can make the person pay anyway. The gemara then tries to prove and then disprove this assumption of Raba that if there are witnesses, one cannot be obligated for an oath of pikadon. Only at the very last source do they succeed in conclusively disproving this assumption. Is an oath of pikadon relevant in a case relating to land?
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.