David ben Se‘adya’s The Book of Oaths (Poetic Version)

Late 11th or Early 12th Century

About This Entry

Halakhic poetry was popular among medieval Jews. This poem is written in a form called urjuza (from the meter used in Arabic, rajaz), which was commonly used for lengthy didactic poems, in both Arabic and Hebrew; each line is made up of a rhymed couplet. The poetic form supposedly made studying the material more pleasant and facilitated memorization. The extant manuscript of this poem says that it is based on Hayya Ga’on’s Book of Oaths, but, as the modern editor notes, this must be a later addition, as it is clear from the content of the poem that the content actually reflects David ben Se‘adya’s work, in the Hebrew translation (see Isaac ben Reuben of Barcelona, “David ben Se‘adya’s The Book of Oaths [Hebrew Translation]”). The imposition of oaths, common among both Jews and non-Jews, was an important enforcement mechanism, particularly for Jewish courts, which often lacked any coercive powers. This excerpt reviews the differences between biblical and rabbinic oaths.

On the Differences between Oaths

And I turn, after all this, to explain

and among the teachings I shall distinguish—

which are biblical and which are from

the rabbis—in accordance with my understanding and reasoning.

There are two [types] and both are the same in form;

each follows the same structure.

But when it is biblical, it is the defendant

who is obligated—he is the one under discussion and the one who swears.

Whereas the oath of the claimant is from the rabbis,

as I will shortly clarify.

And the rabbis instituted that one who wishes may transfer an oath

and impose it on the other side—and this is the law.

And it is not so according to biblical law, rather one must

turn it into an oath of inducement or a curse,

whereby this person swears and that one collects payment,

or one party swears and takes an item by means of the oath.

And likewise, in any case where a person is sued

and is liable to an oath by biblical law,

but refuses to take the oath over his property,

his possessions are taken until he improves his ways.¹

Also, if one is suspect regarding oaths, and is obligated

to swear by the Torah, it is handed over to the other party,

which is not the case according to biblical law.² However,

he loses out, as the law follows this path.³

A fourth law is mentioned in the Jerusalem

Talmud, which aligns closely with these others:

If one is liable to take an oath to another party

according to biblical law, and he hands over the item that is claimed,

He is thereby exempt

and other oaths cannot be imposed upon him.⁴

This is not so when the oath is from the rabbis, even though one cannot

impose all other oaths; we do not listen to him to that extent.

Translated by Avi Steinhart.

Notes

[See b. Shevu‘ot 41a.—Trans.]

[Ibid.—Trans.]

[The meaning here is obscure.—Trans.]

[Gilgul shevu‘ah; i.e., if someone is obligated to take an oath for one claim, oaths can be imposed upon him concerning other claims that on their own would not obligate him in an oath.—Trans.]

Published in: The Posen Library of Jewish Culture and Civilization, vol. 3: Encountering Christianity and Islam.