Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

December 18, 2017 | 诇壮 讘讻住诇讜 转砖注状讞

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Shevuot 20

What are the different types of oaths for which one is obligated to bring a sliding scale sin offering?聽 What is an ”isar” mentioned in the Torah.聽 Rava and Abaye have different explanations.聽 What is the negative commandment that one is violating in different cases of oaths (past and future) and vows?聽 What does the braita mean when it says that sheker and shav are the same thing?

诪住专讘讬谉 讘讜 诇讗讻讜诇

importuning [mesarevin] him to eat.

诪转谞讬转讬谉 讘砖讗讬谉 诪住专讘讬谉 讘讜 诇讗讻讜诇 讘专讬讬转讗 讘诪住专讘讬谉 讘讜 诇讗讻讜诇 讜拽讗诪专 诇讗 讗讻讬诇谞讗 讜诇讗 讗讻讬诇谞讗 讚讻讬 拽讗 诪砖转讘注 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇

The Gemara explains: The mishna here is referring to a case where others are not importuning him to eat; therefore, his oath should be understood literally, as obligating himself to eat. The external mishna, in tractate Nedarim, is referring to a case where others are importuning him to eat and he is saying: I will not eat, I will not eat. Under those circumstances, when he takes an oath, this is what he is saying: On my oath I will not eat.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 转谞讬 砖讘讜注讛 砖讗讬 讗讜讻诇 诇讱 讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 诇诪讬诪专讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诇讬砖谞讬讛 讚讗讬转拽讬诇讗 诇讬讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

Rav Ashi, offering a different resolution of the contradiction, says: Teach, i.e., revise the mishna in tractate Nedarim to say in the middle oath: On my oath I will not [she鈥檌] eat of yours, i.e., using a different formulation for: On my oath I will not eat of yours. The Gemara asks: If so, what is the purpose of stating what is effectively the same oath twice? The Gemara answers: Lest you say that there is a concern that the oath was a slip of his tongue and he meant to take an oath that he will eat and instead said: I will not eat, the mishna teaches us that one need not be concerned that this is what occurred.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪讘讟讗 砖讘讜注讛 讗讬住专 砖讘讜注讛 讗讬住讜专 讗讬住专 讗诐 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬住专 砖讘讜注讛 讞讬讬讘 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 驻讟讜专 讗诐 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬住专 砖讘讜注讛 讜讛讗 讗诪专转 讗讬住专 砖讘讜注讛 讛讜讗

The Sages taught: 鈥淭he clear utterance of her lips, with which she has bound her soul鈥 (Numbers 30:7), is referring to an oath, and: 鈥淎 bond with which she has bound her soul鈥 (Numbers 30:5), is also referring to an oath. With regard to the prohibition invoked by the word 鈥渂ond,鈥 if you say a bond is an oath, he is liable, but if not, he is exempt. The Gemara seeks to explicate this baraita: If you say a bond is an oath? But you already said that a bond is an oath.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诪讘讟讗 砖讘讜注讛 讗讬住专 诪讬转驻讬住 讘砖讘讜注讛 讗讬住讜专 讗讬住专 讗诐 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 诪讬转驻讬住 讘砖讘讜注讛 讻诪讜爪讬讗 砖讘讜注讛 诪驻讬讜 讚诪讬 讞讬讬讘 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 驻讟讜专

Abaye said: This is what the baraita is saying: 鈥淐lear utterance鈥 is an oath, whereas 鈥渂ond鈥 is the association of some object or action with a matter that has already been prohibited by an oath. What is the prohibition invoked by the word 鈥渂ond鈥? If you say that creating an association with an oath is like explicitly expressing an oath with his own mouth then he is liable to bring an offering for unwittingly violating the oath and to receive lashes for doing so intentionally. But if it is not like stating an oath explicitly, he is exempt.

诪诪讗讬 讚诪讘讟讗 砖讘讜注讛 讚讻转讬讘 讗讜 谞驻砖 讻讬 转砖讘注 诇讘讟讗 讘砖驻转讬诐 讗讬住专 谞诪讬 讚讻转讬讘 讻诇 谞讚专 讜讻诇 砖讘注转 讗住专

The Gemara analyzes Abaye鈥檚 explanation: From where may one derive that 鈥渃lear utterance鈥 is an oath? One derives it from the verse written with regard to an oath on an utterance, as it is written: 鈥淥r if anyone take an oath to clearly utter with his lips鈥 (Leviticus 5:4). The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 鈥渂ond鈥 also referring to an oath, as it is written: 鈥淓very vow, and every oath of a bond to afflict the soul, her husband may let it stand, or her husband may make it void鈥 (Numbers 30:14)?

讗诇讗 诪诪讗讬 讚讗讬住专 诪讬转驻住 讘砖讘讜注讛 讛讜讗 讚讻转讬讘 讗讜 讗住专讛 讗住专 注诇 谞驻砖讛 讘砖讘注讛

Rather, from where may one derive that a bond is the association of some object or action with another matter that has been prohibited by an oath? One may derive it from the verse, as it is written: 鈥淥r bound her soul by a bond with an oath鈥 (Numbers 30:11), which indicates that the bond is associated with a preexisting oath.

诪讘讟讗 谞诪讬 讛讻转讬讘 诇讻诇 讗砖专 讬讘讟讗 讛讗讚诐 讘砖讘注讛

The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 the term 鈥渃lear utterance鈥 also associated with an oath in a verse, as it is written: 鈥淲hatsoever it be that a man shall utter clearly with an oath鈥 (Leviticus 5:4)?

讗诇讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪讘讟讗 砖讘讜注讛 诪讛讻讗 讜讗诐 讛讬讜 转讛讬讛 诇讗讬砖 讜谞讚专讬讛 注诇讬讛 讗讜 诪讘讟讗 砖驻转讬讛 讗砖专 讗住专讛 注诇 谞驻砖讛 讜讗讬诇讜 砖讘讜注讛 诇讗 拽讗诪专 讘诪讗讬 讗住专讛 注爪诪讛 讘诪讘讟讗

Rather, Abaye said: The fact that 鈥渃lear utterance鈥 means an oath is derived from here: 鈥淎nd if she be married to a husband, while her vows are upon her, or the clear utterance of her lips, with which she has bound her soul鈥 (Numbers 30:7). While in that verse, it does not state: Oath. With what does she impose a prohibition upon herself? She does so with 鈥渃lear utterance,鈥 indicating that 鈥渃lear utterance鈥 is referring to an oath.

专讘讗 讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讱 诪讬转驻讬住 讘砖讘讜注讛 诇讗讜 讻诪讜爪讬讗 砖讘讜注讛 诪驻讬讜 讚诪讬 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诪讘讟讗 砖讘讜注讛 讗讬住专 谞诪讬 砖讘讜注讛 讗住专讬讛 讚讗讬住专 讛讟讬诇讜 讛讻转讜讘 讘讬谉 谞讚专 诇砖讘讜注讛 讛讜爪讬讗讜 讘诇砖讜谉 谞讚专 谞讚专 讘诇砖讜谉 砖讘讜注讛 砖讘讜注讛

Rava said: Actually, I will say to you that association with an oath is not like expressing an oath with one鈥檚 own mouth, and this is what the baraita is saying: 鈥淐lear utterance鈥 is an oath. 鈥淏ond鈥 can also be an oath, but it is ambiguous. The verse placed the wording of the prohibition of a bond between that of a vow and that of an oath. Therefore, if one expressed a bond with the language of a vow, it is a vow. If one expressed it with the language of an oath, it is an oath.

讛讬讻谉 讛讟讬诇讜 讜讗诐 讘讬转 讗讬砖讛 谞讚专讛 讗讜 讗住专讛 讗住专 注诇 谞驻砖讛 讘砖讘注讛 讜讙讜壮

The Gemara asks: Where did the verse place the word for 鈥渂ond鈥 between a vow and an oath? The verse says: 鈥淎nd if she vowed in her husband鈥檚 house or bound her soul by a bond with an oath鈥 (Numbers 30:11).

讜讗讝讚讜 诇讟注诪讬讬讛讜 讚讗讬转诪专 诪转驻讬住 讘砖讘讜注讛 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讻诪讜爪讬讗 砖讘讜注讛 诪驻讬讜 讚诪讬 讜专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讗讜 讻诪讜爪讬讗 砖讘讜注讛 诪驻讬讜 讚诪讬

The Gemara comments: Abaye and Rava both follow their own lines of reasoning, as it was stated: With regard to one who associates some object or action with another matter that has been prohibited by an oath, Abaye says: It is like explicitly expressing an oath with his mouth, and Rava says: It is not like explicitly expressing an oath with his mouth.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讗讬讝讛 讗讬住专 讛讗诪讜专 讘转讜专讛 讛讗讜诪专 讛专讬 注诇讬 砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇 讘砖专 讜砖诇讗 讗砖转讛 讬讬谉 讻讬讜诐 砖诪转 讘讜 讗讘讬讜 讻讬讜诐 砖诪转 讘讜 驻诇讜谞讬 讻讬讜诐 砖谞讛专讙 讘讜 讙讚诇讬讛 讘谉 讗讞讬拽诐 讻讬讜诐 砖专讗讛 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讘讞讜专讘谞讛 讗住讜专 讜讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讜讛讜讗 砖谞讚讜专 讜讘讗 诪讗讜转讜 讛讬讜诐

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: What is the bond mentioned in the Torah? A bond applies to one who says: It is incumbent upon me that I will not eat meat and that I will not drink wine like on the day that his, i.e., my, father died, or: Like on the day that so-and-so died, or: Like on the day that Gedaliah ben Ahikam was killed, or: Like on the day on which he saw Jerusalem in its destruction. One who makes one of these pronouncements is prohibited from eating meat and drinking wine. And Shmuel says: This is the case only when he is prohibited from eating meat and drinking wine by vow since that day, e.g., the day his father died.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇讗讘讬讬 诪讚诪转驻讬住 讘谞讚专 谞讚专 诪转驻讬住 讘砖讘讜注讛 砖讘讜注讛

The Gemara explains the objection: Granted, according to the opinion of Abaye, from the fact that a vow that one associates with another vow is considered a vow, as Shmuel鈥檚 ruling demonstrates, one may conclude that an oath that one associates with another oath is considered an oath.

讗诇讗 诇专讘讗 拽砖讬讗

But according to Rava鈥檚 opinion, that association with an oath is not considered an oath, the baraita poses a difficulty, as it indicates that association with a vow is considered a vow; a corresponding rule should apply to an oath.

讗诪专 诇讱 专讘讗 转专讬抓 讜讗讬诪讗 讛讻讬 讗讬讝讛讜 讗讬住专 谞讚专 讛讗诪讜专 讘转讜专讛 讛讗讜诪专 讛专讬 注诇讬 砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇 讘砖专 讜砖诇讗 讗砖转讛 讬讬谉 讻讬讜诐 砖诪转 讘讜 讗讘讬讜 讻讬讜诐 砖谞讛专讙 讘讜 驻诇讜谞讬 讜讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讜讛讜讗 砖谞讚讜专 讜讘讗 诪讗讜转讜 讛讬讜诐

The Gemara answers: Rava could say to you: Resolve the difficulty posed by the baraita and say that the baraita teaches this: Which is the bond of a vow mentioned in the Torah? When is a bond, i.e., the acceptance of a prohibition on oneself, considered a vow? According to Rava, 鈥渂ond鈥 in the verse is not referring to association. Rather, it is referring to one who says: It is incumbent upon me that I will not eat meat and that I will not drink wine like on the day that his, i.e., my, father died, or: Like on the day that so-and-so was killed. And Shmuel says: This is the halakha only when he is prohibited from eating meat and drinking wine by vow since that day, e.g., the day his father died.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 讗讬砖 讻讬 讬讚专 谞讚专 诇讛壮 注讚 砖讬讚讜专 讘讚讘专 讛谞讚讜专

What is the reason for Shmuel鈥檚 caveat? The verse states: 鈥淲hen a man vows a vow to the Lord鈥 (Numbers 30:3). The redundancy in the phrase 鈥渧ows a vow鈥 teaches that when one associates a vow with another prohibition, it does not take effect unless he vows by associating it with an item forbidden by means of a vow. Association is derived from this verse and is limited to vows.

讻讬讜诐 砖诪转 讘讜 讗讘讬讜 驻砖讬讟讗 讻讬讜诐 砖谞讛专讙 讘讜 讙讚诇讬讛 讘谉 讗讞讬拽诐 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 诇讬讛 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讻讬 诇讗 谞讚专 谞诪讬 讗住讜专 讻讬 谞讚专 谞诪讬 诇讗 讛讜讬讗 注诇讬讛 讗讬住讜专 讜讛讗讬 诇讗讜 诪讬转驻讬住 讘谞讚专 讛讜讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara discusses the baraita: One who says: It is incumbent upon me that I will not eat meat and that I will not drink wine like on the day that his father died. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 it obvious that he is prohibited from eating meat and drinking wine? Why does the baraita need to mention the specific example of a vow concerning the day his father died? The Gemara answers: It was necessary that the baraita state that the vow takes effect for the sake of the other example: Like on the day that Gedaliah ben Ahikam was killed. Otherwise, it may enter your mind to say: Since, even if he did not vow to refrain from eating meat or drinking wine on that day they would be prohibited to him anyway, as it is a public fast day, when he did vow to refrain from eating and drinking on that day, the prohibition of the vow would not take effect on him, and that subsequent vow would then not be associated with a vow, but with an ordinary prohibition. Therefore, the baraita teaches us that the vow made on the fast day takes effect and the second vow can be associated with it.

讜讗祝 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 住讘专 诇讛 诇讛讗 讚专讘讗 讚讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讘讟讗 诇讗 讗讜讻诇 诇讱 讗讬住专 诇讗 讗讜讻诇 诇讱 砖讘讜注讛

The Gemara comments: And Rabbi Yo岣nan also holds in accordance with this opinion of Rava that a bond is not an association with an oath, but an oath itself, as when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he reported that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: If one says: By my clear utterance I will not eat of yours, or: On my bond I will not eat of yours, it is an oath.

讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讜讻诇 讜诇讗 讗讜讻诇 砖拽专 讜讗讝讛专转讬讛 诪讛讻讗 诇讗 转砖讘注讜 讘砖诪讬 诇砖拽专 讗讻诇转讬 讜诇讗 讗讻诇转讬 砖讜讗 讜讗讝讛专转讬讛 诪讛讻讗 诇讗 转砖讗 讗转 砖诐 讛壮 讗诇讛讬讱 诇砖讜讗

When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael, he reported that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: If one takes an oath, saying: I will eat, or: I will not eat, relating to the future, and does not fulfill it, it is a false oath. And its prohibition in the Torah is from here: 鈥淎nd you shall not take an oath by My name falsely, so that you profane the name of your God; I am the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 19:12). If one takes an oath, saying: I ate, or: I did not eat, relating to past actions, and it is a lie, it is an oath taken in vain, and its prohibition in the Torah is from here: 鈥淵ou shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain; for the Lord will not absolve of guilt he that takes His name in vain鈥 (Exodus 20:7).

拽讜谞诪讜转 注讜讘专 讘诇讗 讬讞诇 讚讘专讜

Rav Dimi continued: With regard to vows where one states that an item is forbidden like an offering [konamot], if he subsequently derives benefit from that item, one violates the prohibition: 鈥淲hen a man vows a vow to the Lord, or takes an oath to bind his soul with a bond, he shall not break his word; he shall do according to all that proceeds out of his mouth鈥 (Numbers 30:3).

诪讬转讬讘讬 砖讜讗 讜砖拽专 讗讞讚 讛谉 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诪讚砖讜讗 诇砖注讘专 讗祝 砖拽专 谞诪讬 诇砖注讘专 讗诇诪讗 讗讻诇转讬 讜诇讗 讗讻诇转讬 砖拽专 讛讜讗

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: The prohibitions against taking an oath in vain and taking a false oath are one. The Gemara suggests: What, is the baraita not teaching that if an oath taken in vain refers to the past, a false oath also refers to the past? Apparently, the statements: I ate, and: I did not eat, are both false oaths, contrary to Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 statement that a false oath is one that relates to the future.

诪讬讚讬 讗讬专讬讗 讛讗 讻讚讗讬转讗 讜讛讗 讻讚讗讬转讗 讜诪讗讬 讚讘专 讗讞讚 讛谉 讚讘讚讬讘讜专 讗讞讚 谞讗诪专讜 讻讚转谞讬讗 讝讻讜专 讜砖诪讜专 讘讚讬讘讜专 讗讞讚 谞讗诪专讜 诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讬讻讜诇 讛驻讛 诇讚讘专 讜诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讛讗讜讝谉 讬讻讜诇 诇砖诪讜注

The Gemara answers: Are the cases comparable? This case, of a false oath, is as it is and that case, of an oath taken in vain, is as it is. What, then, is the meaning of the assertion of the baraita that they are one? It is that both were spoken in a single utterance at the giving of the Torah, like that which is taught in a baraita: 鈥淩emember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy鈥 (Exodus 20:8), and: 鈥淥bserve the Sabbath day, to keep it holy鈥 (Deuteronomy 5:12), were spoken in one utterance, in a manner that the human mouth cannot say and that the human ear cannot hear.

讘砖诇诪讗 讛转诐 讘讚讬讘讜专 讗讞讚 谞讗诪专讜 讻讚专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 谞砖讬诐 讞讬讬讘讜转 讘拽讬讚讜砖 讛讬讜诐 讚讘专 转讜专讛 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讝讻讜专 讜砖诪讜专 讻诇 砖讬砖谞讜 讘砖诪讬专讛 讬砖谞讜 讘讝讻讬专讛 讜讛谞讬 谞砖讬 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讬转谞讛讜 讘砖诪讬专讛 讗讬转谞讛讜 谞诪讬 讘讝讻讬专讛 讗诇讗 讛讻讗 诇诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛

The Gemara asks: Granted, there, 鈥渞emember鈥 and 鈥渙bserve鈥 were spoken in a single utterance in order to teach the halakha that Rav Adda bar Ahava says; as Rav Adda bar Ahava says: Women are obligated to recite kiddush sanctifying the seventh day, by Torah law, even though it is a positive, time-bound mitzva, since the verses state: 鈥淩emember,鈥 and: 鈥淥bserve,鈥 indicating that anyone who is obligated to observe, i.e., is prohibited from performing labor on Shabbat, is obligated to remember, by reciting kiddush. And these women, since they are obligated to observe, they also are obligated to remember. But here, with regard to the prohibitions against taking a false oath and taking an oath in vain, for what halakha is it necessary for them to have been spoken in a single utterance?

讗诇讗 讻砖诐 砖诇讜拽讛 注诇 砖讜讗 讻讱 诇讜拽讛 谞诪讬 注诇 砖拽专

The Gemara explains: Rather, the two prohibitions were spoken together to teach that just as one is flogged for taking an oath in vain, so is one also flogged for taking a false oath.

讻诇驻讬 诇讬讬讗 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讻砖诐 砖诇讜拽讛 注诇 砖拽专 讻讱 诇讜拽讛 谞诪讬 注诇 砖讜讗

The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 it the opposite [kelapei layya]? It is clear that one receives lashes for taking a false oath about the future, which one violates with an action, but an oath taken in vain about the past is merely a verbal pronouncement. Rather, say like this: Just as one is flogged for taking a false oath, i.e., violating one鈥檚 oath about the future, so is one also flogged for taking an oath in vain.

驻砖讬讟讗 讛讗讬 诇讗讜 讜讛讗讬 诇讗讜 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讻讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗讘讬讬 诇讗 讬谞拽讛 讻诇诇

The Gemara asks: Why must the baraita state that one is flogged for either type of oath? Isn鈥檛 it obvious? This is a prohibition and that is a prohibition, and for both one is liable to receive lashes. The Gemara answers: Lest you say as Rav Pappa said to Abaye, that the verse: 鈥淔or the Lord will not absolve of guilt he that takes His name in vain鈥 (Exodus 20:7), might indicate that God will not absolve him at all, and even if he is punished he cannot atone for his sin,

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Shevuot 20

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shevuot 20

诪住专讘讬谉 讘讜 诇讗讻讜诇

importuning [mesarevin] him to eat.

诪转谞讬转讬谉 讘砖讗讬谉 诪住专讘讬谉 讘讜 诇讗讻讜诇 讘专讬讬转讗 讘诪住专讘讬谉 讘讜 诇讗讻讜诇 讜拽讗诪专 诇讗 讗讻讬诇谞讗 讜诇讗 讗讻讬诇谞讗 讚讻讬 拽讗 诪砖转讘注 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇

The Gemara explains: The mishna here is referring to a case where others are not importuning him to eat; therefore, his oath should be understood literally, as obligating himself to eat. The external mishna, in tractate Nedarim, is referring to a case where others are importuning him to eat and he is saying: I will not eat, I will not eat. Under those circumstances, when he takes an oath, this is what he is saying: On my oath I will not eat.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 转谞讬 砖讘讜注讛 砖讗讬 讗讜讻诇 诇讱 讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 诇诪讬诪专讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诇讬砖谞讬讛 讚讗讬转拽讬诇讗 诇讬讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

Rav Ashi, offering a different resolution of the contradiction, says: Teach, i.e., revise the mishna in tractate Nedarim to say in the middle oath: On my oath I will not [she鈥檌] eat of yours, i.e., using a different formulation for: On my oath I will not eat of yours. The Gemara asks: If so, what is the purpose of stating what is effectively the same oath twice? The Gemara answers: Lest you say that there is a concern that the oath was a slip of his tongue and he meant to take an oath that he will eat and instead said: I will not eat, the mishna teaches us that one need not be concerned that this is what occurred.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪讘讟讗 砖讘讜注讛 讗讬住专 砖讘讜注讛 讗讬住讜专 讗讬住专 讗诐 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬住专 砖讘讜注讛 讞讬讬讘 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 驻讟讜专 讗诐 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬住专 砖讘讜注讛 讜讛讗 讗诪专转 讗讬住专 砖讘讜注讛 讛讜讗

The Sages taught: 鈥淭he clear utterance of her lips, with which she has bound her soul鈥 (Numbers 30:7), is referring to an oath, and: 鈥淎 bond with which she has bound her soul鈥 (Numbers 30:5), is also referring to an oath. With regard to the prohibition invoked by the word 鈥渂ond,鈥 if you say a bond is an oath, he is liable, but if not, he is exempt. The Gemara seeks to explicate this baraita: If you say a bond is an oath? But you already said that a bond is an oath.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诪讘讟讗 砖讘讜注讛 讗讬住专 诪讬转驻讬住 讘砖讘讜注讛 讗讬住讜专 讗讬住专 讗诐 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 诪讬转驻讬住 讘砖讘讜注讛 讻诪讜爪讬讗 砖讘讜注讛 诪驻讬讜 讚诪讬 讞讬讬讘 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 驻讟讜专

Abaye said: This is what the baraita is saying: 鈥淐lear utterance鈥 is an oath, whereas 鈥渂ond鈥 is the association of some object or action with a matter that has already been prohibited by an oath. What is the prohibition invoked by the word 鈥渂ond鈥? If you say that creating an association with an oath is like explicitly expressing an oath with his own mouth then he is liable to bring an offering for unwittingly violating the oath and to receive lashes for doing so intentionally. But if it is not like stating an oath explicitly, he is exempt.

诪诪讗讬 讚诪讘讟讗 砖讘讜注讛 讚讻转讬讘 讗讜 谞驻砖 讻讬 转砖讘注 诇讘讟讗 讘砖驻转讬诐 讗讬住专 谞诪讬 讚讻转讬讘 讻诇 谞讚专 讜讻诇 砖讘注转 讗住专

The Gemara analyzes Abaye鈥檚 explanation: From where may one derive that 鈥渃lear utterance鈥 is an oath? One derives it from the verse written with regard to an oath on an utterance, as it is written: 鈥淥r if anyone take an oath to clearly utter with his lips鈥 (Leviticus 5:4). The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 鈥渂ond鈥 also referring to an oath, as it is written: 鈥淓very vow, and every oath of a bond to afflict the soul, her husband may let it stand, or her husband may make it void鈥 (Numbers 30:14)?

讗诇讗 诪诪讗讬 讚讗讬住专 诪讬转驻住 讘砖讘讜注讛 讛讜讗 讚讻转讬讘 讗讜 讗住专讛 讗住专 注诇 谞驻砖讛 讘砖讘注讛

Rather, from where may one derive that a bond is the association of some object or action with another matter that has been prohibited by an oath? One may derive it from the verse, as it is written: 鈥淥r bound her soul by a bond with an oath鈥 (Numbers 30:11), which indicates that the bond is associated with a preexisting oath.

诪讘讟讗 谞诪讬 讛讻转讬讘 诇讻诇 讗砖专 讬讘讟讗 讛讗讚诐 讘砖讘注讛

The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 the term 鈥渃lear utterance鈥 also associated with an oath in a verse, as it is written: 鈥淲hatsoever it be that a man shall utter clearly with an oath鈥 (Leviticus 5:4)?

讗诇讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪讘讟讗 砖讘讜注讛 诪讛讻讗 讜讗诐 讛讬讜 转讛讬讛 诇讗讬砖 讜谞讚专讬讛 注诇讬讛 讗讜 诪讘讟讗 砖驻转讬讛 讗砖专 讗住专讛 注诇 谞驻砖讛 讜讗讬诇讜 砖讘讜注讛 诇讗 拽讗诪专 讘诪讗讬 讗住专讛 注爪诪讛 讘诪讘讟讗

Rather, Abaye said: The fact that 鈥渃lear utterance鈥 means an oath is derived from here: 鈥淎nd if she be married to a husband, while her vows are upon her, or the clear utterance of her lips, with which she has bound her soul鈥 (Numbers 30:7). While in that verse, it does not state: Oath. With what does she impose a prohibition upon herself? She does so with 鈥渃lear utterance,鈥 indicating that 鈥渃lear utterance鈥 is referring to an oath.

专讘讗 讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讱 诪讬转驻讬住 讘砖讘讜注讛 诇讗讜 讻诪讜爪讬讗 砖讘讜注讛 诪驻讬讜 讚诪讬 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诪讘讟讗 砖讘讜注讛 讗讬住专 谞诪讬 砖讘讜注讛 讗住专讬讛 讚讗讬住专 讛讟讬诇讜 讛讻转讜讘 讘讬谉 谞讚专 诇砖讘讜注讛 讛讜爪讬讗讜 讘诇砖讜谉 谞讚专 谞讚专 讘诇砖讜谉 砖讘讜注讛 砖讘讜注讛

Rava said: Actually, I will say to you that association with an oath is not like expressing an oath with one鈥檚 own mouth, and this is what the baraita is saying: 鈥淐lear utterance鈥 is an oath. 鈥淏ond鈥 can also be an oath, but it is ambiguous. The verse placed the wording of the prohibition of a bond between that of a vow and that of an oath. Therefore, if one expressed a bond with the language of a vow, it is a vow. If one expressed it with the language of an oath, it is an oath.

讛讬讻谉 讛讟讬诇讜 讜讗诐 讘讬转 讗讬砖讛 谞讚专讛 讗讜 讗住专讛 讗住专 注诇 谞驻砖讛 讘砖讘注讛 讜讙讜壮

The Gemara asks: Where did the verse place the word for 鈥渂ond鈥 between a vow and an oath? The verse says: 鈥淎nd if she vowed in her husband鈥檚 house or bound her soul by a bond with an oath鈥 (Numbers 30:11).

讜讗讝讚讜 诇讟注诪讬讬讛讜 讚讗讬转诪专 诪转驻讬住 讘砖讘讜注讛 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讻诪讜爪讬讗 砖讘讜注讛 诪驻讬讜 讚诪讬 讜专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讗讜 讻诪讜爪讬讗 砖讘讜注讛 诪驻讬讜 讚诪讬

The Gemara comments: Abaye and Rava both follow their own lines of reasoning, as it was stated: With regard to one who associates some object or action with another matter that has been prohibited by an oath, Abaye says: It is like explicitly expressing an oath with his mouth, and Rava says: It is not like explicitly expressing an oath with his mouth.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讗讬讝讛 讗讬住专 讛讗诪讜专 讘转讜专讛 讛讗讜诪专 讛专讬 注诇讬 砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇 讘砖专 讜砖诇讗 讗砖转讛 讬讬谉 讻讬讜诐 砖诪转 讘讜 讗讘讬讜 讻讬讜诐 砖诪转 讘讜 驻诇讜谞讬 讻讬讜诐 砖谞讛专讙 讘讜 讙讚诇讬讛 讘谉 讗讞讬拽诐 讻讬讜诐 砖专讗讛 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讘讞讜专讘谞讛 讗住讜专 讜讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讜讛讜讗 砖谞讚讜专 讜讘讗 诪讗讜转讜 讛讬讜诐

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: What is the bond mentioned in the Torah? A bond applies to one who says: It is incumbent upon me that I will not eat meat and that I will not drink wine like on the day that his, i.e., my, father died, or: Like on the day that so-and-so died, or: Like on the day that Gedaliah ben Ahikam was killed, or: Like on the day on which he saw Jerusalem in its destruction. One who makes one of these pronouncements is prohibited from eating meat and drinking wine. And Shmuel says: This is the case only when he is prohibited from eating meat and drinking wine by vow since that day, e.g., the day his father died.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇讗讘讬讬 诪讚诪转驻讬住 讘谞讚专 谞讚专 诪转驻讬住 讘砖讘讜注讛 砖讘讜注讛

The Gemara explains the objection: Granted, according to the opinion of Abaye, from the fact that a vow that one associates with another vow is considered a vow, as Shmuel鈥檚 ruling demonstrates, one may conclude that an oath that one associates with another oath is considered an oath.

讗诇讗 诇专讘讗 拽砖讬讗

But according to Rava鈥檚 opinion, that association with an oath is not considered an oath, the baraita poses a difficulty, as it indicates that association with a vow is considered a vow; a corresponding rule should apply to an oath.

讗诪专 诇讱 专讘讗 转专讬抓 讜讗讬诪讗 讛讻讬 讗讬讝讛讜 讗讬住专 谞讚专 讛讗诪讜专 讘转讜专讛 讛讗讜诪专 讛专讬 注诇讬 砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇 讘砖专 讜砖诇讗 讗砖转讛 讬讬谉 讻讬讜诐 砖诪转 讘讜 讗讘讬讜 讻讬讜诐 砖谞讛专讙 讘讜 驻诇讜谞讬 讜讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讜讛讜讗 砖谞讚讜专 讜讘讗 诪讗讜转讜 讛讬讜诐

The Gemara answers: Rava could say to you: Resolve the difficulty posed by the baraita and say that the baraita teaches this: Which is the bond of a vow mentioned in the Torah? When is a bond, i.e., the acceptance of a prohibition on oneself, considered a vow? According to Rava, 鈥渂ond鈥 in the verse is not referring to association. Rather, it is referring to one who says: It is incumbent upon me that I will not eat meat and that I will not drink wine like on the day that his, i.e., my, father died, or: Like on the day that so-and-so was killed. And Shmuel says: This is the halakha only when he is prohibited from eating meat and drinking wine by vow since that day, e.g., the day his father died.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 讗讬砖 讻讬 讬讚专 谞讚专 诇讛壮 注讚 砖讬讚讜专 讘讚讘专 讛谞讚讜专

What is the reason for Shmuel鈥檚 caveat? The verse states: 鈥淲hen a man vows a vow to the Lord鈥 (Numbers 30:3). The redundancy in the phrase 鈥渧ows a vow鈥 teaches that when one associates a vow with another prohibition, it does not take effect unless he vows by associating it with an item forbidden by means of a vow. Association is derived from this verse and is limited to vows.

讻讬讜诐 砖诪转 讘讜 讗讘讬讜 驻砖讬讟讗 讻讬讜诐 砖谞讛专讙 讘讜 讙讚诇讬讛 讘谉 讗讞讬拽诐 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 诇讬讛 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讻讬 诇讗 谞讚专 谞诪讬 讗住讜专 讻讬 谞讚专 谞诪讬 诇讗 讛讜讬讗 注诇讬讛 讗讬住讜专 讜讛讗讬 诇讗讜 诪讬转驻讬住 讘谞讚专 讛讜讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara discusses the baraita: One who says: It is incumbent upon me that I will not eat meat and that I will not drink wine like on the day that his father died. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 it obvious that he is prohibited from eating meat and drinking wine? Why does the baraita need to mention the specific example of a vow concerning the day his father died? The Gemara answers: It was necessary that the baraita state that the vow takes effect for the sake of the other example: Like on the day that Gedaliah ben Ahikam was killed. Otherwise, it may enter your mind to say: Since, even if he did not vow to refrain from eating meat or drinking wine on that day they would be prohibited to him anyway, as it is a public fast day, when he did vow to refrain from eating and drinking on that day, the prohibition of the vow would not take effect on him, and that subsequent vow would then not be associated with a vow, but with an ordinary prohibition. Therefore, the baraita teaches us that the vow made on the fast day takes effect and the second vow can be associated with it.

讜讗祝 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 住讘专 诇讛 诇讛讗 讚专讘讗 讚讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讘讟讗 诇讗 讗讜讻诇 诇讱 讗讬住专 诇讗 讗讜讻诇 诇讱 砖讘讜注讛

The Gemara comments: And Rabbi Yo岣nan also holds in accordance with this opinion of Rava that a bond is not an association with an oath, but an oath itself, as when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he reported that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: If one says: By my clear utterance I will not eat of yours, or: On my bond I will not eat of yours, it is an oath.

讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讜讻诇 讜诇讗 讗讜讻诇 砖拽专 讜讗讝讛专转讬讛 诪讛讻讗 诇讗 转砖讘注讜 讘砖诪讬 诇砖拽专 讗讻诇转讬 讜诇讗 讗讻诇转讬 砖讜讗 讜讗讝讛专转讬讛 诪讛讻讗 诇讗 转砖讗 讗转 砖诐 讛壮 讗诇讛讬讱 诇砖讜讗

When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael, he reported that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: If one takes an oath, saying: I will eat, or: I will not eat, relating to the future, and does not fulfill it, it is a false oath. And its prohibition in the Torah is from here: 鈥淎nd you shall not take an oath by My name falsely, so that you profane the name of your God; I am the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 19:12). If one takes an oath, saying: I ate, or: I did not eat, relating to past actions, and it is a lie, it is an oath taken in vain, and its prohibition in the Torah is from here: 鈥淵ou shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain; for the Lord will not absolve of guilt he that takes His name in vain鈥 (Exodus 20:7).

拽讜谞诪讜转 注讜讘专 讘诇讗 讬讞诇 讚讘专讜

Rav Dimi continued: With regard to vows where one states that an item is forbidden like an offering [konamot], if he subsequently derives benefit from that item, one violates the prohibition: 鈥淲hen a man vows a vow to the Lord, or takes an oath to bind his soul with a bond, he shall not break his word; he shall do according to all that proceeds out of his mouth鈥 (Numbers 30:3).

诪讬转讬讘讬 砖讜讗 讜砖拽专 讗讞讚 讛谉 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诪讚砖讜讗 诇砖注讘专 讗祝 砖拽专 谞诪讬 诇砖注讘专 讗诇诪讗 讗讻诇转讬 讜诇讗 讗讻诇转讬 砖拽专 讛讜讗

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: The prohibitions against taking an oath in vain and taking a false oath are one. The Gemara suggests: What, is the baraita not teaching that if an oath taken in vain refers to the past, a false oath also refers to the past? Apparently, the statements: I ate, and: I did not eat, are both false oaths, contrary to Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 statement that a false oath is one that relates to the future.

诪讬讚讬 讗讬专讬讗 讛讗 讻讚讗讬转讗 讜讛讗 讻讚讗讬转讗 讜诪讗讬 讚讘专 讗讞讚 讛谉 讚讘讚讬讘讜专 讗讞讚 谞讗诪专讜 讻讚转谞讬讗 讝讻讜专 讜砖诪讜专 讘讚讬讘讜专 讗讞讚 谞讗诪专讜 诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讬讻讜诇 讛驻讛 诇讚讘专 讜诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讛讗讜讝谉 讬讻讜诇 诇砖诪讜注

The Gemara answers: Are the cases comparable? This case, of a false oath, is as it is and that case, of an oath taken in vain, is as it is. What, then, is the meaning of the assertion of the baraita that they are one? It is that both were spoken in a single utterance at the giving of the Torah, like that which is taught in a baraita: 鈥淩emember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy鈥 (Exodus 20:8), and: 鈥淥bserve the Sabbath day, to keep it holy鈥 (Deuteronomy 5:12), were spoken in one utterance, in a manner that the human mouth cannot say and that the human ear cannot hear.

讘砖诇诪讗 讛转诐 讘讚讬讘讜专 讗讞讚 谞讗诪专讜 讻讚专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 谞砖讬诐 讞讬讬讘讜转 讘拽讬讚讜砖 讛讬讜诐 讚讘专 转讜专讛 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讝讻讜专 讜砖诪讜专 讻诇 砖讬砖谞讜 讘砖诪讬专讛 讬砖谞讜 讘讝讻讬专讛 讜讛谞讬 谞砖讬 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讬转谞讛讜 讘砖诪讬专讛 讗讬转谞讛讜 谞诪讬 讘讝讻讬专讛 讗诇讗 讛讻讗 诇诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛

The Gemara asks: Granted, there, 鈥渞emember鈥 and 鈥渙bserve鈥 were spoken in a single utterance in order to teach the halakha that Rav Adda bar Ahava says; as Rav Adda bar Ahava says: Women are obligated to recite kiddush sanctifying the seventh day, by Torah law, even though it is a positive, time-bound mitzva, since the verses state: 鈥淩emember,鈥 and: 鈥淥bserve,鈥 indicating that anyone who is obligated to observe, i.e., is prohibited from performing labor on Shabbat, is obligated to remember, by reciting kiddush. And these women, since they are obligated to observe, they also are obligated to remember. But here, with regard to the prohibitions against taking a false oath and taking an oath in vain, for what halakha is it necessary for them to have been spoken in a single utterance?

讗诇讗 讻砖诐 砖诇讜拽讛 注诇 砖讜讗 讻讱 诇讜拽讛 谞诪讬 注诇 砖拽专

The Gemara explains: Rather, the two prohibitions were spoken together to teach that just as one is flogged for taking an oath in vain, so is one also flogged for taking a false oath.

讻诇驻讬 诇讬讬讗 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讻砖诐 砖诇讜拽讛 注诇 砖拽专 讻讱 诇讜拽讛 谞诪讬 注诇 砖讜讗

The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 it the opposite [kelapei layya]? It is clear that one receives lashes for taking a false oath about the future, which one violates with an action, but an oath taken in vain about the past is merely a verbal pronouncement. Rather, say like this: Just as one is flogged for taking a false oath, i.e., violating one鈥檚 oath about the future, so is one also flogged for taking an oath in vain.

驻砖讬讟讗 讛讗讬 诇讗讜 讜讛讗讬 诇讗讜 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讻讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗讘讬讬 诇讗 讬谞拽讛 讻诇诇

The Gemara asks: Why must the baraita state that one is flogged for either type of oath? Isn鈥檛 it obvious? This is a prohibition and that is a prohibition, and for both one is liable to receive lashes. The Gemara answers: Lest you say as Rav Pappa said to Abaye, that the verse: 鈥淔or the Lord will not absolve of guilt he that takes His name in vain鈥 (Exodus 20:7), might indicate that God will not absolve him at all, and even if he is punished he cannot atone for his sin,

Scroll To Top