Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) MULTIPLE TRANSGRESSIONS FOR ONE EATING (cont.)

(a) Answer #6 (Ravina): The Tana only lists transgressions that only apply to food, oaths apply to other things as well.
(b) Objection: Hekdesh applies to sticks and stones!
(c) Correction: Rather, the Tana only lists transgressions that only apply to tangible things;

1. Oaths apply to intangible things, e.g. I will sleep (or not sleep).

(a) (Mishnah): Oaths of Bituy apply to a person's own things, and to other people's; they apply to tangible and intangible things;

1. If Reuven swore 'I will give (or not give) to Ploni', 'I gave (or did not give) to Ploni', 'I will (or will not) sleep', 'I slept (or did not sleep)', 'I will (or will not) throw a rock into the sea', 'I threw (or did not throw) a rock into the sea'.

(b) R. Yishmael says, one is only liable (a sacrifice) for oaths regarding the future - "Lehara O Leheitiv".
(c) R. Akiva: If so, he should only be liable for doing good or evil - what is the source to include neutral things (e.g. throwing a rock into the sea)?
(d) R. Yishmael: The Torah (says "L'Chol Asher Yivatei" to) include this.
(e) R. Akiva: This also includes oaths about the past!
(f) (Gemara - Beraisa): In some ways, Nedarim are more stringent than Shevu'os; in some ways, Shevu'os are more stringent.

1. A stringency of Nedarim over Shevu'os: Nedarim take effect on Mitzvos just as on optional matters, Shevu'os do not;
2. A stringency of Shevu'os over Nedarim: Shevu'os take effect on intangible things just as on tangible things, Nedarim do not.

(g) (Mishnah): If Reuven swore 'I will give (or not give) to Ploni'...
(h) Question: What does this mean?

1. If it means Tzedakah to a poor person - "Nason Titen Lo", the oath (we accepted on Sinai) already obligates him (so his oath does not takes effect)!
2. Rather, it means a gift to a rich person.

(i) (Mishnah): 'I will (or will not) sleep'.
(j) Question: But R. Yochanan taught, one who swears 'I will not sleep for three days', we lash him (for a Shav oath) and he may sleep immediately!
(k) Answer: That is when he specified three days; here, he did not specify (Rashba - he intends, 'I will not sleep until I must') R. Chananel, Rosh - he specified one or two days).

(a) (Mishnah): 'I will (or will not) throw a rock into the sea'
(b) (Rav): 'I swear that Ploni threw (or did not throw) a rock into the sea' - he is liable (for an oath of Bituy if this is false);
(c) (Shmuel): He is exempt.

1. Rav obligates - since the oath applies in the positive and negative, it is Bituy;
2. Shmuel exempts - since it does not apply to the future, it is not Bituy.

(d) Suggestion: They argue as the following Tana'im argue.

1. (Mishnah - R. Yishmael): One is liable only for oaths of Bituy about the future;

i. R. Akiva: If so, he should only be liable for doing good or evil - what is the source to include neutral things (e.g. throwing a rock into the sea)?
ii. R. Yishmael: The Torah includes this (by saying "L'Chol Asher Yivatei").
iii. R. Akiva: This also includes oaths about the past!

2. Rav holds like R. Akiva, Shmuel holds like R. Yishmael.

(e) Rejection: Indeed, we must say that Rav holds like R. Akiva;

1. R. Yishmael cannot agree to Rav's law, for R. Yishmael exempts (all) oaths of the past, even those that could apply to the future, all the more oaths that could not apply to the future!
2. But R. Akiva could agree to Shmuel's law;

i. We only heard R. Akiva obligate for oaths of the past that could apply to the future - perhaps he exempts for oaths that could not apply to the future!

(f) Suggestion: Rav and Shmuel argue as the following Tana'im argue.

1. (Mishnah): If one swore not to fulfill a Mitzvah and he fulfilled it, he is exempt;
2. If he swore to fulfill a Mitzvah and did not fulfill it, he is exempt.
3. One might have thought to obligate, like R. Yehudah ben Beseira.

i. R. Yehudah ben Beseira says, if one is liable for (failing to keep) an oath about something optional, which he is not forced to do on account of the oath we accepted on Sinai, all the more so for an oath to fulfill a Mitzvah, which he is forced to fulfill on account of the oath from Sinai!
ii. Chachamim: No - he is liable for an oath about something optional, because such an oath could be made in the positive or negative;
iii. He is exempt for an oath to fulfill a Mitzvah, because such an oath can only be made in the positive, not in the negative!

4. Rav holds like R. Yehudah ben Beseira, Shmuel holds like Chachamim.

(g) Rejection: Indeed, we must say that Shmuel holds like Chachamim.

1. R. Yehudah ben Beseira obligates an oath even if it does not apply to the negative, all the more so if (it applies to the negative but) not to the future!
2. But Chachamim could agree to Rav's law.

i. Chachamim say that one is liable only for an oath thatcould be made in the positive or negative, as we explicitly learn from "Lehara O Leheitiv";
ii. Perhaps they do not require that it can be in the future, since we only learn oaths of the past by expounding extra words.

(h) Question (against Shmuel - Rav Hamnuna - Mishnah): Reuven said 'I did not eat today', or 'I did not don Tefilin today'; Shimon said 'I impose an oath on you', and Reuven answered 'Amen' - he is liable (if he lied).

1. We understand why he is liable for 'I did not eat' - he could take this oath in the future (I will eat);
2. But why is he liable for 'I did don Tefilin' - he could not swear 'I will not don Tefilin', the oath of Sinai obligates him to don Tefilin!

(i) Answer (Rav Hamnuna): There are different liabilities for the two oaths.

1. For 'I did not eat', he is (even) liable to bring a sacrifice (if he did not intend to swear falsely);
2. For 'I did not don Tefilin', he is liable to lashes (if he was warned not to swear falsely and did so intentionally).

(j) Question (against Shmuel - Rava - Mishnah): The case of Shevu'as Shav: he swore to negate what people know to be true, e.g. about a stone pillar that it is of gold.

1. (Ula): He is liable only if three people know that this is false.
2. Inference: If people do not know, this is Bituy, even though it does not apply to the future (to say 'it will be of gold')!

(k) Answer (Rava): (Ula): If people know, the oath is Shav;

1. If people do not know, this is a false oath (but he is not liable for Bituy).

(a) (Abaye): Rav admits that if one swore falsely 'I know testimony for you', he is exempt, because the negative version of this (I do not know testimony for you) is not Bituy, rather Shevu'as ha'Edus.

1. Rav and Shmuel argue regarding 'I knew testimony for you' and 'I did not know testimony for you' (in situations where the testimony is no longer needed), and about 'I testified for you' and 'I did not testify for you'. (Rav obligates, Shmuel exempts;

i. These oaths apply to the positive and negative, but not to the future - it is not in his control to know testimony or not, and if he knows, he is commanded to testify.)

(b) According to Shmuel, 'I do not know testimony for you' would not be considered Bituy, since it does not apply to the future; therefore, we understand why the Torah had to write the Parshah of Shevu'as ha'Edus, to obligate a sacrifice for this.
(c) Question: According to Rav, it is Bituy even though it does not apply to the future - why did the Torah have to write the Parshah of Shevu'as ha'Edus to obligate a sacrifice?
(d) Answer #1 (Rabanan): To obligate him a second sacrifice.
(e) Rejection (Abaye - Beraisa): "L'Achas me'Eleh" - he only brings one sacrifice.

1. Question: How does Abaye answer?

(f) Answer #2: Like the following Beraisa.

1. (Beraisa): Regarding the other transgressions for which one brings an Oleh v'Yored, it says 'v'Ne'elam', but not regarding Shevu'as ha'Edus - this teaches that one brings a sacrifice for Shevu'as ha'Edus even if he intentionally transgressed.

(g) Suggestion (Rabanan): Perhaps he brings one sacrifice if he sinned intentionally, and two if he sinned unintentionally!
(h) Rejection (Abaye): I already taught you, "L'Achas me'Eleh" - he only brings one sacrifice;

1. This teaches when he sinned unintentionally - if intentionally, he cannot bring a sacrifice for Bituy, no verse is needed to exclude bringing two sacrifices.

(i) (Rava): "L'Achas me'Eleh" is not needed for Shevu'as ha'Edus (rather, it teaches about one who swore not to eat and ate three types of food);

1. Whenever the Torah gives new laws to a particular case which was part of a general rule (e.g. 'I do not know testimony for you', which (should have been) a Shevu'ah of Bituy, was given the name and special laws of Shevu'as ha'Edus), the laws of the general rule no longer apply.

(j) Inference: Abaye holds that it is also considered Bituy.
(k) Question: But Abaye said that Rav admits that 'I know testimony for you' is exempt (from Bituy) because 'I do not know testimony for you' is not Bituy!
(l) Answer #1: Abaye retracted from saying that Rav admits.
(m) Answer #2: One of these two teachings was actually said by Rav Papa (and mistakenly attributed to Abaye).