Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) OTHER WORDINGS OF A "SHEVU'AH"

(a) (R. Avahu): "Vayavei Oso b'Alah (Nebuchadnetzar imposed an Alah on Chizkiyahu)" and it says "Asher Hishbi'o bei'Lokim" - this teaches that Alah is a Shevu'ah.
(b) (Beraisa): The language 'Arur' includes excommunication, curse, and oath.

1. Excommunication - "Oru Meroz...Arur Yoshveha (cursed is Meroz...and those who sit near him)";

i. (Ula): Barak excommunicated Meroz with 400 shofars.

2. Curse - "These will stand Al ha'Kelalah...Arur ha'Ish".
3. Oath - "Va'Yashba Yehoshua...Arur ha'Ish (that will rebuild Yericho)".
4. Objection: Perhaps he swore *and* cursed (so this does not prove that Arur is a language of an oath)!
5. Rather, we learn from "Va'Yo'el...Sha'ul...Arur ha'Ish that will eat...Yonasan did not hear b'Hashbi'a".
6. Objection: Perhaps here also Sha'ul swore and cursed!
7. Answer: If so, it would have said 'v'Arur'.

i. The same can be said regarding Yehoshua, that is also a proof that Arur is an oath.

(c) (R. Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina): 'Amen' is a language of (accepting) an oath, accepting terms, and affirmation.

1. An oath - "V'Amerah ha'Ishah (the Sotah) Amen Amen";

(d) Accepting terms - "Cursed is the one who will not fulfill...v'Amar Kol ha'Am Amen".
(e) Affirmation - "Amen Ken Ya'aseh Hash-m (to return the vessels of the Mikdash and Benei Yisrael from exile)".
(f) (R. Elazar): Saying 'no' or 'yes' is an oath.

1. We understand the source for 'no' - "V'Lo Yihyeh Od ha'Mayim l'Mabul", and it says "Asher Nishbati me'Avor Mei No'ach"

(g) Question: What is the source that 'yes' is an oath?
(h) Answer: Reasoning says, if 'no' is an oath, also 'yes'.
(i) (Rava): It is only an oath if he says 'yes' or'no' twice;

1. Hash-m said "V'Lo Yikares Kol Basar" *and* "V'Lo Yihyeh Od ha'Mayim l'Mabul".
2. Similarly, 'yes' is an oath only if said twice.

(a) (Mishnah - R. Meir): One who curses Hash-m with any of these names is liable (to death administered by Beis Din); Chachamim exempt him.
(b) (Beraisa - R. Meir) Question: Since it says "V'Nokev Shem Hash-m Mos Yumas", why must it also say "Ish Ish Ki Yekalel Elokav"?
(c) Answer: One might have thought, one is liable only for (cursing) the intrinsic name 'Hash-m'; the extra verse teaches that one is also liable for other names;
(d) Chachamim say, one is liable to death for cursing 'Hash-m'; one transgresses a Lav for other names.
(e) (Mishnah): One who curses his parents...
(f) Question: Who are Chachamim, who exempt (from death) for cursing parents with other names of Hash-m?
(g) Answer: R. Menachem bar Yosi.

1. (Beraisa - R. Menachem bar Yosi): "B'Nakevo Shem Yumas" - we do not need this to teach about cursing Hash-m, so we apply it to cursing parents, one is liable only for cursing with the name 'Hash-m'.

(h) (Mishnah): One who curses himself or another person with any of these names transgresses a Lav.
(i) (R. Yanai): All agree to this.

1. One who curses himself transgresses "Hishamer Lecha u'Shmor Nafshecha M'od";

i. (R. Avin): 'Hishamer', 'Pen', or 'Al' always denotes a Lav.

2. One who curses another person transgresses (a Lav learned from a Tzad ha'Shavah of cursing a parent and) "Lo Sekalel Cheresh".

(j) (Mishnah): 'Hash-m should strike you (if you will not testify for me)' - this is the Alah (curse) the Torah refers to.
(k) Rav Kahana was reciting this Mishnah in front of Rav Yehudah, who told him to recite it in the third person (so it should not sound like he curses Rav Yehudah).
(l) A Chacham was reciting and expounding "Gam Kel Yitatzecha..."; Rav Kahana told him to recite it in the third person.
(m) Question: Why must this case also be mentioned?
(n) Answer: One might have thought, we only recite Mishnayos in an altered form, not verses - the second episode teaches, we even do this with verses.

(a) (Mishnah): R. Meir says, 'Hash-m should not strike you', or 'Hash-m should bless you', 'Hash-m should do good to you (if you will testify for me)' - they are liable; Chachamim exempt them.
(b) Question: But R. Meir holds that we do not infer the positive from the negative (i.e. He should strike you if you do not testify), (or vice-versa)!
(c) Answer #1: The opinions of R. Meir and Chachamim must be switched.
(d) R. Yitzchak learned the Mishnah like our (original) text.

1. (Rav Yosef): We cannot switch the opinions if this opposes our text and R. Yitzchak's.
2. Question: How do we resolve the contradiction in R. Meir?

(e) Answer #2: R. Meir holds that we do not infer the positive from the negative in monetary matters, but regarding prohibitions, we do.
(f) Question: But Sotah is a prohibition, and (when we asked why R. Meir infers the negative from the positive), R. Tanchum answered, because it says "Hinaki" without a 'Yud' (allowing it to be read (through substitution of 'Hei' and 'Ches') 'Chanki (you will choke))';

1. Otherwise, R. Meir would not infer the negative from the positive!

(g) Answer #1: Indeed, the opinions must be switched; R. Meir does not infer the negative from the positive even regarding prohibitions.
(h) Question (Ravina): If so, he should say that one who serves in the Mikdash after drinking wine (or without having cut his hair in the last 30 days) is not punishable by death at the hands of Heaven!

1. (Mishnah): One who serves in the Mikdash after drinking wine or without having cut his hair in the last 30 days is punishable by death at the hands of Heaven. (And we do not find anyone that argues with this!)

(i) Version #1 - Rashi - Answer #2: The opinions must be switched; R. Meir does not infer the negative from the positive by anything involving money, he does infer regarding prohibitions;

1. Sotah is a prohibition that involves money (the Kesuvah).

(j) Version #1 - Tosfos - Answer #2: The opinions should not be switched; R. Meir does not infer the negative from the positive by anything involving money, he does infer regarding prohibitions;

1. Sotah (and Shevu'as ha'Edus) are prohibitions that involve money (the Kesuvah, or the claim. Chachamim exempt regarding Shevu'as ha'Edus in a case where he did not use the name 'Hash-m', rather a different name).

4) "SHEVU'AS HA'PIKADON"

(a) (Mishnah - R. Meir): Shevu'as ha'Pikadon applies to men and women, to strangers and relatives, to Kosher and invalid witnesses;

1. When he swears himself, it applies in or outside of Beis Din; if the oath is imposed on him, he is only liable if he denies in Beis Din.

(b) Chachamim say, whether he swears himself or the oath is imposed on him, he is liable if he denies (even outside of Beis Din).
(c) He is liable whether or not he knew the punishment for the oath, if he knew that he was swearing falsely;

1. He is exempt if he believed that he was swearing truthfully.

(d) When liable, he brings an Asham that costs at least two Shekalim.
(e) Shevu'as ha'Pikadon: Shimon told Levi 'Give me the deposit you are holding for me'; Levi swore 'You do not have a deposit by me', or Shimon imposed this oath on him and he answered Amen - (if Levi was lying) he is liable.
(f) If he imposed the oath on him five times, in or outside of Beis Din, and Levi denied the deposit, he is liable for each oath;

1. R. Shimon says, this is because each time he could have admitted.

(g) Five partners claimed a deposit from Levi; he swore 'You do not have a deposit by me' - he is only liable once;

1. If he said 'I swear that you do not have a deposit by me, nor you...' he is liable for each one.
2. R. Eliezer says, he is liable for each only if he said 'Shevu'ah' (Ramban - also) at the end;
3. R. Shimon says, he is liable for each only if he said 'Shevu'ah' to each.

(h) Shimon claimed from Levi: 'You have a deposit from me, a loan, an object you stole from me and an object I lost'; Levi swore 'You do not have by me' - he is only liable once;

1. If Levi said 'I swear that you do not have by me a deposit, loan, stolen object or lost object', he is liable for each one.

(i) 'Give me my wheat, barley and spelt', Levi swore 'You do not have by me' - he is only liable once;

1. If Levi said 'I swear that you do not have by me wheat, barley or spelt', he is liable for each one.
2. R. Meir says, even if he said 'wheat, barley and spelt' in the singular forms of these words, he is liable for each one (this will be explained later).

(j) Shimon claimed: 'You raped or enticed my daughter'; Levi denied it. Shimon imposed this oath on him and Levi answered Amen - Levi is liable;

1. R. Shimon says, he is exempt, for even if he admitted, he would not pay the fine.
2. Chachamim: True, but he would pay for embarrassment and Pegam by his own admission!

(k) 'You stole my ox'; Levi denied it. Shimon imposed this oath on him and Levi answered Amen - Levi is liable;

1. If Levi admitted 'I stole your ox, but I did not slaughter or sell it'. Shimon imposed an oath on him and Levi answered Amen - Levi is exempt.

(l) 'Your ox killed my ox'; Levi denied it. Shimon imposed this oath on him and Levi answered Amen - Levi is liable;

1. 'Your ox killed my (Kana'ani) slave'; Levi denied it. Shimon imposed this oath on him and Levi answered Amen - Levi is exempt (for he would not pay the fine even if he admitted).

(m) 'You wounded me'; Levi denied it. Shimon imposed this oath on him and Levi answered Amen - Levi is liable;
(n) Tavi (Levi's Kana'ani slave) said 'You knocked out my tooth or blinded my eye'; Levi denied it. Tavi imposed this oath on him and Levi answered Amen - Levi is exempt;

1. The general rule is: if the defendant would have had to pay by his own admission he is liable, if not, he is exempt.