Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) FALSE AND UNNECESSARY OATHS (cont.)

(a) Answer #2: Just as one brings a sacrifice for Sheker, also for Shav;

1. The Beraisa is R. Akiva, who says that one brings a sacrifice for oaths of the past as for the future.

(b) Question (Beraisa): A Shav oath is one which everyone knows to be false; Sheker is swearing to change (from the truth, i.e. something of the past).
(c) Answer: The Beraisa means, Sheker is swearing and *changing* (from what he swore to do, i.e. in the future).
(d) (Ravin citing R. Avahu citing R. Yochanan): If a person falsely swore 'I ate' or 'I did not eat', this is Sheker, it is forbidden by "V'Lo Sishav'u bi'Shmi la'Shaker";

1. If he swore 'I will eat' or 'I will not eat', he is commanded "Lo Yachel Devaro".
2. A Shav oath is one which everyone knows to be false.

(a) (Rav Papa): R. Yochanan did not explicitly say the above teaching, rather R. Avahu inferred it from the following.

1. (Rav Idi bar Avin citing R. Yochanan): One is lashed for a Lav which is done through an action;
2. The only Lavim without an action for which one is lashed are swearing (falsely), Temurah and cursing a person.

(b) Question: What is the source of lashes for swearing?
(c) Answer (R. Yochanan): "Lo Tisa...la'Shav Ki Lo Yenakeh" - The Heavenly court does not cleanse, but Beis Din lashes and cleanses.
(d) Question (Rav Papa): Perhaps "Lo Yenakeh" at all!
(e) Answer (Abaye): Had it only said "Lo Yenakeh", that would be correct;

1. Rather, it says "Lo Yenakeh Hash-m" - but Beis Din cleanses.

(f) Question: This only teaches that there are lashes for a Shav oath - what is the source for Sheker?
(g) Answer (R. Yochanan): It says twice "La'Shav";

1. We use the extra one to teach about Sheker.

(h) Question (R. Avahu): What kind of Sheker do we learn to?

1. Suggestion: If he swore 'I will not eat' and he ate - he transgressed through an action (we already know he is lashed)!

(i) Answer #1: Rather, he swore 'I will eat' and he did not eat.
(j) Objection: He is not lashed for this!

1. (R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish): If one swore 'I will eat this loaf today' and he did not, he is not lashed.

i. (R. Yochanan): He is not lashed because he transgressed without an action, one is not lashed for such a Lav;
ii. (Reish Lakish): He is not lashed because he did not receive definite warning (no one knows precisely when the day ends).

(k) Answer #2 (R. Avahu): Rather, he swore 'I ate' or 'I did not eat'.
(l) Question: Here also he transgressed without an action, why is he lashed?
(m) Answer (Rava): The Torah teaches that one is lashed for Sheker that resembles Shav, i.e. in the past.
(n) Question (against R. Avahu - R. Yirmeyah - Mishnah): If Reuven said 'I swear that I will not eat this loaf, I swear that I will not eat it, I swear that I will not eat it' and ate it, he is only liable for one oath;

1. *This* is the Shevu'ah of Bituy for which one is lashed if he intentionally transgressed and brings an Oleh v'Yored if he unintentionally transgressed.
2. Suggestion: 'This' is excludes 'I ate' or 'I did not eat', he is not lashed for them!

(o) Answer #1: No, it excludes 'I ate' or 'I did not eat', to teach that he does not bring a sacrifice for them;

1. The Mishnah is R. Yishmael, who says that a sacrifice is brought only for oaths about the future;
2. He is lashed for 'I ate' or 'I did not eat'.

3. Question (end of the Mishnah): *This* is the Shevu'as Shav for which there are lashes, but not a sacrifice;

i. Suggestion: This excludes 'I ate' or 'I did not eat', he is not lashed for them!

4. Answer: No, it excludes 'I ate' or 'I did not eat', to teach that he brings a sacrifice for them;

i. This is like R. Akiva, who obligates a sacrifice for the past as for the future.

5. Objection: The beginning of the Mishnah is R. Yishmael, the end is R. Akiva?!

(p) Answer #2: The entire Mishnah is R. Akiva;

1. The beginning of the Mishnah does not exclude 'I ate' or 'I did not eat' from a sacrifice, rather it excludes 'I will eat' from lashes (if he does not eat, since he transgresses through inaction), but he brings a sacrifice (if he unintentionally transgressed).

(q) Version #1 (Rashi) Question: Why not say the first clause also excludes 'I ate' and 'I did not eat' from lashes?
(r) Version #2 (Tosfos) Question: Why not answer that the entire Mishnah is R. Yishmael: the first clause excludes 'I ate' and 'I did not eat' from lashes, the second clause excludes them from a sacrifice? (End of Version #2)
(s) Answer: The first clause teaches about an oath of the future, presumably it excludes an oath of the future.

(a) (Mishnah - R. Akiva): If one swore 'I will not eat' and he ate any amount, he is liable...
(b) Question: How does R. Akiva hold in general?

1. Does he hold like R. Shimon, that one is lashed for eating any amount of any prohibition?

i. (Beraisa - R. Shimon): one is lashed for eating any amount of any prohibition; the quantity of an olive's worth only pertains to bringing a sacrifice.
ii. Really, the argument of R. Akiva and Chachamim could have been taught elsewhere;
iii. It was taught by Shevu'os to teach that Chachamim do not say, just as he is liable for any amount if he specifies (in the oath that he will not eat any amount), he is liable for any amount (even without specifying),

2. Or, does he normally hold like Chachamim?

i. Only regarding Shevu'os he obligates for any amount, just as he is liable for any amount if he specifies.

(c) Answer #1 (Mishnah - Chachamim): We never find that someone is liable for eating any amount!

1. If R. Akiva normally holds like R. Shimon, he should answer, 'I hold that one is always liable for eating any amount'!

(d) Rejection: R. Akiva answered Chachamim according to their opinion;

1. I normally hold like R. Shimon - you should admit to me regarding Shevu'os, just as he is liable for any amount if he specifies, he is liable for any amount even without specifying.
2. Chachamim did not agree.

(e) Answer #2 (Mishnah - R. Akiva): If a Nazir ate bread that was soaked in wine and there is an olive's worth of wine and bread together, he is liable.

1. If he normally held like R. Shimon, a Nazir is liable for any amount of wine, there is no need to join up to an olive's worth! (This proof is accepted, we bring another proof anyway.)

(f) Answer #3 (Mishnah): If a person swore 'I will not eat', and he ate Neveilos, Treifos, rodents or insects, he is liable (for the oath);

1. R. Shimon says, he is exempt.
2. Question: Why do Chachamim obligate him? The oath (we accepted on Sinai) already obligates him not to eat them (so his oath does not takes effect)!
3. Answer #1 (Rav, Shmuel and R. Yochanan): Because his oath takes effect on permitted food, it also takes effect on forbidden food.
4. Answer #2 (Reish Lakish): The Torah only forbids him from eating an olive's worth of these things, his oath forbids him from eating any amount;

i. We find this according to Chachamim if he specified (any amount), or according to R. Akiva even without specifying.

5. Culmination of answer: If R. Akiva held like R. Shimon, the Torah forbids him from eating any amount!
6. We conclude that R. Akiva does not normally hold like R. Shimon.

(g) (Mishnah - Chachamim): We never find that someone is liable for eating any amount!
(h) Question: But one is liable for eating an ant of any size!
(i) Answer: That is because it is a full creation.
(j) Question: One is liable for eating Hekdesh, even less than an olive's worth!
(k) Answer: There is a minimum quantity (albeit of value) for liability, a Perutah.
(l) Question: If one specified in his oath, he is liable for any amount!
(m) Answer: There, he showed that any amount is important to him, he is liable for it just as for a creation.
(n) Question: Why don't we say that he is liable for any amount of dirt (i.e. the quantity of an olive's worth only applies to things normally eaten)?

1. Suggestion: Since Chachamim say he is never liable for any amount, they must hold that one is liable for dirt only for an olive's worth - this settles Rava's question!

i. Question (Rava): 'I swear that I will not eat', and he ate dirt - how much must he eat to be liable?

(o) Answer: Chachamim meant, we never find that someone is liable for eating any amount of something that is normally eaten.
(p) Question: One is liable for eating any amount of Konamos!
(q) Answer: Konamos is also like specifying (any amount, since he does not mention eating).