Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) OATHS ABOUT MITZVOS

(a) Version #1 - Rashi -(Mishnah): If one swore not to fulfill a Mitzvah and fulfilled it, he is exempt;
(b) If he swore to fulfill a Mitzvah and did not fulfill it, he is exempt.

1. One might have thought to obligate him from a Kal va'Chomer, as R. Yehudah ben Beseira does:

(c) Version #2 - Tosfos - (Mishnah - R. Yehudah ben Beseira): If one swore not to fulfill a Mitzvah and fulfilled it, he is exempt;
(d) If he swore to fulfill a negative Mitzvah and did not fulfill it, he is exempt.

1. One might have thought to obligate him from a Kal va'Chomer: (end of Version #2)
2. One is liable (to bring the sacrifice for transgressing an oath of Bituy) for optional matters, all the more so for an oath about a Mitzvah, by which one is already bound by the oath of Sinai!
3. Chachamim: This is not so (even for positive Mitzvos) - one is liable for optional matters, for they apply in the negative just as in the positive;

i. He is exempt for an oath about a Mitzvah, since there is no liability for breaking an oath not to fulfill the Mitzvah.

(e) (Gemara - Beraisa): Suggestion: If one swore not to fulfill a Mitzvah and fulfilled it, he should be liable.
(f) Rejection: "Lehara O Leheitiv" - just as "Leheitiv (to do good)" does not refer to a Mitzvah (later, we shall explain how we know this), also "To do evil" does not refer to a Mitzvah;

1. This excludes one who swore not to fulfill a Mitzvah and fulfilled it, he is exempt.
2. Suggestion: If one swore to fulfill a Mitzvah and did not fulfill it, he should be liable.
3. Rejection: "Lehara O Leheitiv" - just as "To do evil" does not refer to a Mitzvah, also "To do good";

i. This excludes one who swore to fulfill a Mitzvah and did not fulfill it, he is exempt.

4. Suggestion: If one swore to harm himself and did not fulfill it, he should be exempt.
5. Rejection: "Lehara O Leheitiv" - just as "To do good" is optional, also "To do evil";

i. This includes one who swore to harm himself (Tosfos - our Tana allows harming oneself; Ran - since the Torah does not explicitly forbid this, an oath to do so takes effect) and did not fulfill it, he is liable.

6. Suggestion: If one swore to harm others and did not fulfill it, he should be liable.
7. Rejection: "Lehara O Leheitiv" - just as "To do good" is optional, also "To do evil";

i. This excludes one who swore to harm others (the oath did not take effect, since the Torah explicitly forbids this) and did not fulfill it, he is exempt.

8. Question: What is the source to include one who swears to benefit others?
9. Answer: "O Leheitiv".

i. An example of harming others is striking them.

(g) Question: The Tana assumed that the verse speaks of optional good and evil - how does he know this, perhaps it speaks of Mitzvos?!
(h) Answer #1: It cannot be Mitzvos, for we equate "To do good" and "To do evil" in both directions;

1. Just as the case of "To do good" (e.g. eating) cannot entail not fulfilling a Mitzvah (for that is detrimental to a person), also "To do evil" (e.g. not eating) cannot entail not fulfilling a Mitzvah;

i. Rather, "To do evil" must be fulfillment of a Mitzvah, (e.g. not eating Neveilos) - but this is included in "To do good"!

2. Likewise, just as the case of "To do evil" (e.g. not eating) cannot entail fulfilling a Mitzvah (for that benefits a person), also "To do good" cannot entail fulfilling a Mitzvah;

i. Rather, "To do good" must be not fulfilling of a Mitzvah, (e.g. eating Neveilos) - but this is included in "To do evil"!

3. We conclude, the verse must speak of optional good and evil.

(i) Rejection: The same reasoning shows that it does not speak of optional good and evil!

1. (Just as the case of "To do good" (e.g. eating) cannot entail eating harmful food (for that is detrimental), also "To do evil" cannot harm the body;

i. Rather, "To do evil" must be refraining from harmful food - but this is included in "To do good"!
ii. Similarly, we may show that "To do good" must be eating harmful food - but this is included in "To do evil"!

(j) Answer #2: Rather, since the Torah had to write "*O* Leheitiv" to include benefiting others, we conclude that the verse speaks of optional good and evil;

1. If it referred to Mitzvos, having taught that oaths apply to harming others, there would be no need to teach that they apply to helping others!

(k) Question: This answer is according to R. Yonason, how can R. Yoshiyah answer?

1. (Beraisa - R. Yoshiyah): "A man that will curse Es Aviv v'Es Imo" - this only teaches if he curses both;

i. "Aviv v'Imo Kilel" - this includes, even if he curses only one of them ('curse' is put adjacent to each parent).

2. R. Yonason says, a Vov (and) connotes even one, unless the Torah explicitly says 'together' (as it does regarding Kilayim).

(l) Answer: The Mishnah can even be as R. Yoshiyah, he holds like R. Akiva (26A), who expounded the inclusion, exclusion, inclusion to include everything except for oaths about Mitzvos.

1. This can only be if the Torah speaks of optional oaths - but if it speaks of oaths about Mitzvos, there is nothing to exclude!

(m) (Mishnah - R. Yehudah ben Beseira): If one liable for an optional oath...
(n) Question: How does R. Yehudah answer Chachamim's rebuttal?
(o) Answer: One is liable for an oath to benefit others, even though an oath to harm others does not take effect, because the verse included it;

1. Similarly, one is liable for an oath to fulfill a Mitzvah, even though an oath not to fulfill a Mitzvah does not take effect, because the verse included it!
2. Chachamim argue: an oath to benefit others also applies to the negative (not to benefit others) - but an oath to fulfill a Mitzvah does not apply to the negative (not to fulfill the Mitzvah) at all!

(a) (Mishnah): '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 - Tosfos deletes this)' - if he eats it, he is only liable once;

1. This is the oath of Bituy for which one is lashed if he transgressed intentionally, and brings an Oleh v'Yored if he was Shogeg.
2. For a vain oath one is lashed if he transgressed intentionally, if he was Shogeg he is exempt.

(b) (Gemara) Question: Why does the Tana change the language from the first oath ('I will not eat this loaf') to the second ('I will not eat it')?
(c) Answer: To teach that only in this order, he is only liable once; had he reversed the order, he is liable twice.

1. (Rava): 'I swear that I will not eat this loaf' - he is liable for eating an olive's worth of it; 'I swear that I will not eat it' - he is not liable until he eats all of it.

(d) (Mishnah): '...I swear that I will not eat it' - if he eats it, he is only liable once;
(e) Version #1 (Rashi) Question: Why does the Tana mention a third oath (obviously, if the second oath does not take effect, neither does the third!)?
(f) Version #2 (Tosfos) Question: Why does the Tana say 'he is *only* liable once'? (end of Version #2)
(g) Answer: To teach that he is not liable, but there is an oath, if an opportunity comes, it will take effect.
(h) Question: When does it make a difference?
(i) Answer: As Rava taught, if he asks to annul the first oath (and a Chacham permits it), the second takes effect.
(j) Suggestion: A Beraisa supports this.

1. (Beraisa): A man accepted Nezirus two times; he conducted 30 days of (the first) Nezirus, separated sacrifices, and asked to annul the first Nezirus - he fulfills the second Nezirus through the days he conducted (and can use the sacrifices for it). (This shows, if the second Nezirus has an opportunity to take effect, it does!)

(k) Rejection: There is different, the second Nezirus will surely take effect (if he does not annul the first Nezirus, it takes effect after the first Nezirus);

1. Here, the second oath was void when he uttered it!