Previous daf

1)

(a) Our Mishnah incorporates issues that concern others in a the Din of Shevu'as Bituy, as well as issues that concern the Nishba himself. The four cases of Shevu'as Bituy listed by the Tana Kama that concern others are - ' ... that I will give so-and-so', ' ... that I will not give so-and-so', ' ... that I gave so-and-so' and ' ... that I did not give so-and-so'.

(b) The Tana also incorporates 'Devarim she'Ein Bahen Mamash' (also each consisting of the same four cases). The two connotations of 'Devarim she'Ein Bahen Mamash' are - ' ... that I will (or will not, did or did not) toss a pebble into the sea', and ' ... that I will (or will not, did or did not) sleep (for a short period).

(a) Rebbi Yishmael learns from "Lehara O Leheitiv" - that one is only Chayav a Korban Oleh ve'Yored for a Shevu'ah of the future, but not for one of the past (as we have already learned).

(b) Rebbi Yishmael conceded to Rebbi Akiva that things that are neither good nor bad ('Devarim she'Ein Bahen Mamash') - are subject to a Korban Oleh ve'Yored.

(c) The problem Rebbi Akiva now has with Rebbi Yishmael is - that in his (Rebbi Akiva's) opinion, the source for both this case and Shevu'os in the past lies in the Pasuk "le'Chol Asher Yevatei ... ' (as we shall see later). Consequently, if Rebbi Yishmael concedes the one, he ought to concede the other too.

(a) The Beraisa weighs up Shevu'os and Nedarim. The Chumra of ...

1. ... Nedarim over Shevu'os is - the fact that they are valid on a D'var Mitzvah (whereas Shevu'os are not).
2. ... Shevu'os over Nedarim is - that they take effect even on abstract issues (as we learned in our Mishnah [whereas Nedarim are not]).

(b) When the Tana says that Nedarim take effect on a Mitzvah, he is referring to where the Noder said (for example) - 'Konem Sukah she'Ani Oseh', or 'Konem Lulav she'Ani Notel'.

(a) When our Mishnah presents the case of ...

1. ... 'Shevu'ah she'Lo Etein le'Ish P'loni', he cannot be referring to giving Tzedakah to a poor man - since he is already Mushba ve'Omed me'Har Sinai (via the Pasuk in Re'ei "Nason Titen Lo"), in which case his Shevu'ah would not be valid.
2. ... 'Shevu'ah she'Lo Ishan', he cannot be referring to never sleeping at all - because Rebbi Yochanan has already taught us 'Shevu'ah she'Lo Ishan Sheloshah Yamim, Malkin Oso ve'Yashen le'Alter' (meaning that he receives Malkos for a Shevu'as Shav, in which case it does fall under the category of Shevu'as Bituy).

(b) Consequently, he must be referring ...

1. ... in the former case - to giving a gift to a wealthy man.
2. ... in the latter case - to not sleeping for less than three days.

(a) If Reuven declares 'Shevu'ah she'Zarak (or she'Lo Zarak) P'loni Tz'ror le'Yam', Rav sentences him to Malkos for a Shevu'as Bituy (should he contravene his Shevu'ah), seeing as it is subject to both 'La'av ve'Hein'. Shmuel disagrees with him - because it is only subject to the past, but not to the future, since Reuven has no control over what Shimon does (in which case it is a case of Shevu'as Shav, and not a Shevu'as Bituy).

(b) We try to link this Machlokes with the Machlokes Tana'im in our Mishnah - in which case, Rav will hold like Rebbi Akiva (who does not require a Shevu'ah Bituy to necessarily pertain to the past) and Shmuel like Rebbi Yishmael (who does).

(c) When we reject this suggestion with the words 'Aliba de'Rebbi Yishmael Kuli Alma Lo P'ligi', we mean - that there is no question that Rebbi Yishmael cannot conform with Rav (and that Rav's statement is therefore a Machlokes Tana'im).

(d) Rav cannot hold like Rebbi Yishmael - because if, even when the Shevu'ah does pertain to the future, the latter precludes the Shevu'ah in the past from a Shevu'as Bituy, he will certainly preclude it where when it does not.

(e) And we conclude they argue according to Rebbi Akiva. Rav maintains that the latter holds like him, whereas Shmuel maintains that Rebbi Akiva will agree with him too - because (unlike the case in the Mishnah), the Shevu'ah *cannot* apply to the future, and therefore it will not apply to the past either.

6)

(a) The Mishnah later rules that someone who swears to contravene a Mitzvah and then breaks his word - is Patur (because his Shevu'ah is not valid).

(b) Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira rules that someone who swears to fulfill a Mitzvah and then breaks his word - is Chayav (because of Shevu'as Bituy) ...

(c) ... 'Kal va'Chomer from a Shevu'as Reshus, which is valid even though it does not have the backing of a Shevu'ah at Har Sinai.

(d) The Rabbanan counter Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira's argument, based on the fact that - whereas a Shevu'as Reshus is 'be'Hein ve'La'av', a Shevu'as Mitzvah is not (and therefore it is not valid).

(a) We attempt to link the Machlokes between Rav and Shmuel with that of Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira and the Rabbanan - inasmuch as Rav, who does not require le'Haba and le'she'Avar, holds like Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira, who does not require 'Hein ve'La'av', and Sh'muel (who does not ... ) holds like the Rabbanan (who do not ... ).

(b) We conclude however, that they do not argue about Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira - by which we mean that there is no question that Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira cannot conform with Shmuel (and that Shmuel's statement is therefore a Machlokes Tana'im), because if he doesn't require La'av va'Hein (where the Torah writes explicitly 'Lehara O Leheitiv'), then he certainly will not require 'Le'Haba and Le'she'Avar' (which we only learn from a 'Ribuy').

(c) Rav maintains that the Rabbanan will agree with him (and not require 'le'Haba' and 'le'she'Avar') - because unlike 'La'av ve'Hein' (which they require because it is written explicitly, as we just explained), it is only learned from a Ribuy.

(a) The Mishnah later rules that if someone declares 'Lo Achalti Ha'yom, ve'Lo Hinachti Tefilin Ha'yom. Nishbacha, ve'Amar Amen - Chayav'.

(b) Rav Hamnuna poses a Kashya from this Mishnah on Shmuel - from the case of Tefilin, which does not apply to the future (because it is a case of 'Nishba Levatel es ha'Mitzvah').

(c) We answer that the Mishnah is learned 'li'Tzedadin - meaning 'Lo Achalti, le'Korban (because it is a Shevu'as Bituy), Lo Hinachti le'Malkos' (because it is a Shevu'as Sheker).

(a) The Tana there also discusses a case of Shevu'as Shav ('Nishba Leshanos es ha'Yudu'a le'Adam'). Shmuel rules that - it falls under the category of Shevu'as Shav if three people knew about it.

(b) Rava extrapolates - that if three people did not know about it, then it would be a Shevu'as Bituy, creating a Kashya on Shmuel - since such a Shevu'ah (e.g. that a stone pillar should become gold) does not pertain to the future.

(c) Rava himself answers the Kashya, by establishing 'Lo Nikar' (not as a Shevu'as Bituy, but) - as a Shevu'as Sheker.

(a) Abaye states that if Reuven says to Shimon 'Shevu'ah she'Ani Yode'a Lach Eidus', and it turns out that he doesn't, he is not Chayav for Shevu'as Bituy, even according to Rav - because it is not 'be'Hein ve'La'av' (and Rav only argues with Shmuel by 'le'she'Avar u'Lehaba')

(b) He says about 'Shevu'ah ...

1. ... she'Yada'ti Lach Eidus' or she'Lo Yada'ti Lach Eidus' - that Rav and Shmuel argue over this (seeing as it does not apply to the future (as we learned above).
2. ... He'adti' or 'Lo He'adti' - just like he said in the previous case.

(c) Even though the Torah writes Shevu'as Bituy and Shevu'as Eidus in the same La'av in Vayikra, we have no problem with the Torah mentioning the latter independently, according to Shmuel - because Shevu'as Bituy will not apply to Shevu'as ha'Eidus anyway (seeing as it does not pertain to the future).

(d) The problem, according to Rav (who does not require 'le'she'Avar u'le'Haba' is - seeing as the Nishba is already Chayav because of Shevu'as Bituy, why does the Torah then add Shevu'as ha'Eidus.

(a) The Rabbanan attempted to answer the Kashya in front of Abaye - by sentencing him to both Shevu'as Bituy and Shevu'as ha'Eidus.

(b) Based on the Pasuk "Vehayah Ki Ye'sham *le'Achas* me'Eileh" however, Abaye retorted - the Torah specifically precludes such a ruling (with the word "Achas").

(c) So Abaye answered the Kashya on Rav with a Beraisa 'be'Chulan Ne'emar "ve'Ne'elam", ve'Ka'an Lo Ne'emar "ve'Ne'elam", by which he meant - that by all the cases of Shevu'as Bituy, the Torah writes "ve'Ne'elam" (confining the Chiyuv Korban Oleh ve'Yored to a case of Shogeg), whereas by Shevu'as ha'Eidus it does not, thereby confining it to Meizid.

(d) The Rabbanan suggested to Abaye that perhaps "Achas" pertains specifically to Meizid, who will therefore be Chayav only one set of Malkos (for Shevu'as Eidus), but not to Shogeg, who will therefore be Chayav two Korbanos (a Korban Oleh ve'Yored for Shevuas Bituy as well). He replied that Meizid does not require the D'rashah of "Achas", seeing as the Torah has already written "ve'Ne'elam", in which case it can only pertain to Shogeg, as we explained.

(a) According to Rava, we do not need "Achas" to teach us that Shevu'as Eidus is not Chayav because of Shevu'as Bituy as well - because it is a 'Davar she'Hayah bi'Chelal ve'Yatza Lidon be'Davar he'Chadash I Atah Yachol Lehachziro li'Chelalo ... ' (which means that, seeing as the Torah introduced the Chidush of Shevu'as ha'Eidus to the existing case of Shevu'as Bituy, one is no longer Chayav for Shevu'as Bituy (unless the Torah were to specifically reinstate it).

(b) According to Rava, "Achas" comes to teach us - that if someone says 'Shevu'ah she'Lo Ochal', and then eats wheat bread, barley bread and spelt bread, he will only receive one set of Malkos.

(a) Abaye disagrees with Rava. According to him, the Shevu'as Bituy is not automatically precluded from a case of Shevu'as Eidus. Despite the fact that the Torah anyway writes "Achas", the difference between Abaye and Rava will be - in a case where Shevu'as Eidus is not applicable (i.e. if the Nishba was Pasul le'Eidus or where he declared the Shevu'ah outside Beis-Din). In such a case, he will be Chayav because of Shevu'as Bituy according to Abaye, but not according to Rava.

(b) This create a problem with Abaye's earlier statement 'Shevu'ah she'Ani Yode'a Lach Eidus ve'Ishtakach de'Lo Yada Patur, Ho'il ve'Leiseih be'Eini Yode'a' - which implies that in a case of Shevu'as ha'Eidus, there is no Shevu'as Bituy at all (whereas we just explained that there is).

(c) Initially, we reply - that Abaye retracted from that statement.

(d) Alternatively - we establish one of Abaye's two statements like Rav Papa (and Abaye never actually said it at all).