Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) FOR WHICH OATHS IS ONE LIABLE?

(a) (Mishnah - R. Yishmael): One is only liable (a sacrifice) for oaths regarding the future - "Lehara O Leheitiv".
(b) (Beraisa - R. Akiva) Question: "Lehara O Leheitiv" connotes oaths of doing harm (to oneself) or benefiting - what is the source to include 'neutral' oaths?
(c) Answer: "O Nefesh".

1. Question: "Lehara O Leheitiv" connotes oaths of the future - what is the source to include oaths of the past?
2. Answer: "L'Chol Asher Yevatei".

(d) R. Yishmael says, "Lehara O Leheitiv" teaches, only oaths of the future.
(e) R. Akiva: What is your source for neutral oaths?
(f) R. Yishmael: Extra words in the verse ("L'Chol Asher Yevatei") teach to include them.
(g) R. Akiva: Just as they include neutral oaths, they also include oaths of the past. (End of Beraisa)
(h) Question: How can R. Yishmael answer R. Akiva's challenge?
(i) Answer (R. Yochanan): R. Yishmael learned from R. Nechunyah ben Hakaneh, who expounds according to generalities and specifics; R. Akiva learned from Nachum Ish Gam Zu, who expounds according to inclusions and exclusions.

1. (Beraisa - R. Akiva): "O Nefesh Ki Sishava" - this is an inclusion; "Lehara O Leheitiv" - exclusion; "L'Chol Asher Yevatei" - inclusion;

i. From a inclusion, exclusion, inclusion we (initially) include everything, then we exclude one thing - oaths about Mitzvos (Tosfos - also, oaths that do not apply in the positive and negative, and (according to Shmuel) oaths that do not apply to the future).

2. R. Yishmael expounds according to generalities and specifics: "O Nefesh..." - this is a generality; "Lehara O Leheitiv" - specific; "L'Chol Asher Yevatei" - generality;

i. From a generality, specific, generality we include things similar to the specific, i.e. in the future;
ii. The generality includes 'neutral' oaths; the specific excludes oaths, even of benefit or harm, in the past.

(j) Question: Why not say the contrary (to include oaths of the past, and exclude 'neutral' oaths)?
(k) Answer #1 (R. Yitzchak): They should resemble "Lehara O Leheitiv", i.e. one must keep them on account of "Lo Yachel Devaro";

1. One must keep them oaths of the past on account of "Lo Seshakeru"

(l) Answer #2 (R. Yitzchak bar Avin): "Ki *Sishava Levatei*" - the Shevu'ah must precede the Bituy (the action he swears about), not vice-versa;

1. This excludes 'I ate' or 'I did not eat', for the action preceded the oath.

(a) (Beraisa): "Ha'Adam bi'Shvu'ah" - this excludes Ones; "V'Nelam" - this excludes Mezid; "Mi'Menu" - he forgot the oath.

1. Suggestion: Perhaps he is liable even if he forgot that this is the item he swore about!
2. Rejection: "Bi'Shvu'ah v'Nelam" - he is liable for forgetting the oath, not for fgg the item.

(b) Question: The Beraisa said "Ha'Adam bi'Shvu'ah" excludes Ones - what is the case?
(c) Answer: Like the case of Rav Kahana and Rav Asi.

1. After learning from Rav, they argued about what Rav said. Each swore 'this is what Rav said'. Later Rav said like one of them; the other was worried that he had sworn falsely.
2. Rav: Don't worry - this was Ones (you swore what you believed was the truth).

(d) (Beraisa): "Bi'Shvu'ah v'Nelam" - he is liable for forgetting the oath, not for forgetting the item.
(e) Chachamim of Eretz Yisrael laughed at this:

1. It is possible to forget the oath and remember the item, e.g. he swore not to eat wheat bread, and thought that he swore 'I will eat', and knowingly ate it;
2. Objection: But how can one remember the oath and forget the item?!
3. Suggestion: He swore not to eat wheat bread, and thought that he swore not to eat barley bread;

i. He remembered the oath (that he would not eat), he forget which item he swore about.

4. Rejection: Since he forgot which item he swore about, he forgot the oath!

(f) (R. Elazar): The text of the Beraisa is mistaken, any case of forgetting the item must entail forgetting the oath.
(g) Rebuttal (Rav Yosef): It is possible to forget the item without forgetting the oath!

1. He swore not to eat wheat bread, and took what he thought was barley bread but really was wheat bread!

(h) Question (Abaye): He is liable for what he ate - he did not know that he was eating what he swore about! (The second version in the Gemara asks this same question in another language.)
(i) Answer (Rav Yosef): Since he would not have eaten had he known that it was wheat, this is called forgetting the item.
(j) Question (Rava): If he forget the item and the oath, what is the law?
(k) Answer #1 (Rav Nachman): Since he forgot the oath, he is liable.

1. Question: Why not say the contrary, since he forgot the item, he is exempt!

(l) Answer #2 (Rav Ashi): It depends: if he would have refrained had he remembered the oath, this is like forgetting the oath, he is liable;

1. If he would have refrained had he remembered the item, this is like forgetting the item, he is exempt.

(m) Objection (Ravina): If he only remembered one of them, he would not refrain!
(n) Answer #3 (Ravina): Rather, the law is the same in both cases. (Rashi - he is exempt; Rashba - Ravina did not decide what the law is.)
(o) Question (Rava): When is a sacrifice brought for an oath of Bituy of the past?

1. If he intentionally swore falsely, he is Mezid!
2. If he believed he swore truthfully, he is Ones!

(p) Answer (Rabah): He swore falsely, knowing that this is forbidden, but he did not know whether a sacrifice is brought for such oaths.
(q) Suggestion: This is like Munvaz, who says that if one knowingly sinned, unaware that a sacrifice is brought for this transgression, he must bring a sacrifice.
(r) Rejection: It is even like Chachamim.

1. Chachamim only argue regarding sacrifice for other Mitzvos;

i. We learn from idolatry that sacrifices are brought only for transgressions punishable by Kares (if done intentionally);

2. The sacrifice for an oath of Bituy is a Chidush, since this is only a Lav, Chachamim agree that forgetting the sacrifice is sufficient to obligate a sacrifice.

(a) Question (Ravina): If one swore not to eat a loaf, and later was in danger of starving and ate it (forgetting that he swore not to eat it), what is the law?

1. Objection: If he is in danger, he was permitted to eat it, he did not transgress!

(b) Version #1 - Rashi - Correction: Rather, if he swore not to eat a loaf, and was suffering great hunger and ate it, forgetting his oath), what is the law?
(c) Version #2 - Tosfos - Correction: Rather, if he swore not to eat a loaf, and was pained that he remembered his oath (he wished he had forgotten it, for then he could eat it), and ate it, what is the law?
(d) Version #3 - Rambam - Correction: Rather, if he swore not to eat a loaf, and was suffering great hunger and ate it, thinking that this is permitted (on account of his pain), what is the law?
(e) Answer (Rava - Beraisa): One who would have refrained had he known that he is transgressing, he brings a sacrifice; one who would have transgressed anyway does not. (Since he would have eaten it anyway (Tosfos - wanted to eat it), he is exempt.)

(a) (Shmuel): It does not suffice to think the oath, he must say it - "Levatei bi'Sfasayim".
(b) Question (Beraisa): "Bi'Sfasayim" - not in the heart;

1. Question: How do we know, even if he decides absolutely in his heart?
2. Answer: "L'Chol Asher Yevatei".
3. Objection: This contradicts the first clause, which said that an oath in the heart is not an oath!
4. Answer #1 (Rav Sheshes): "Bi'Sfasayim" excludes one who resolved to say an oath, and never uttered it;

i. If he decided absolutely to accept an oath in his heart, this is binding.

5. This understanding of the Beraisa argues with Shmuel!

(c) Answer (for Shmuel, and Answer #2 to explain the Beraisa - Rav Sheshes): "Bi'Sfasayim" excludes one who wanted to swear 'I will not eat wheat bread', and he mistakenly said 'I will not eat barley bread';

1. Question: How do we know, even if he wanted to swear 'I will not eat wheat bread', and he mistakenly swore 'I will not eat bread', this is an oath?
2. Answer: "L'Chol Asher Yevatei".

(d) Question (Beraisa): "Motzai Sefasecha Tishmor" - this is (vows to bring sacrifices) that he uttered;

1. Question: How do we know, even if he decided in his heart?
2. Answer: "Kol Nediv Lev" (donated towards the Mishkan).

(e) Answer: Speech is not needed to make Hekdesh, as we learn from "Kol Nediv Lev", but it is needed for an oath.
(f) Question: We should learn that the same applies to oaths!
(g) Answer #1: We do not learn, because we have two verses, (Terumah and Kodshim), one of which teaches something which could have been learned from the other (that deciding in the heart is enough), they do not teach about other laws. (Rashi - Terumas (donations to) ha'Mishkan and sacrifices; Tosfos - Terumah (of grain) and sacrifices; R. Chananel, Tosfos ha'Rosh - Terumah (of grain) and donations to the Mishkan, for each of these a *Torah* verse teaches that speech is not needed.)
(h) Question: This is according to the opinion that two verses, one of which teaches something which could have been learned from the other, do not teach about other laws;

1. According to the opinion that two such verses *do* teach about other laws, how can we answer?

(i) Answer #2: We do not learn laws of Chulin (oaths) from Kodshim.